Does AP need changing in 10th

[Schlitzaf]

Everytime I hear folks old edition 40k Bolters Removed Armor Saves. I’m like what edition did you pay?

 

With how bonkers easy cover was to get. It was absurdly simple to get a cover save. And atleast now, Marines get saves from Molten Hot Plasma and friends. Where in past they just died. So here be my change.

 

Restore AoC (ONLY ASTARTES Factions). Reduce AP of Weaponry Strength 6 or less, (And yes its intended hit stuff like Shurikan Weaponry, AssaultCannons etc), so that dedicated anti-tank still mulches. There could be a debate here to additional critieria. 
 

Intervening models provide cover. These makes it easier to get cover and so that “zoning” matters vs longer range shooting or w/e. Beyond that if not restoring AoC, I’d outright go threw various units in 8th-9th (AdMech Ranger, Shurikan Weaponry, Necron Gauss, etc) that got AP and remove those. Keep AP -1 a lot more limited and rare. 
 

AP Arm’s race started by doctrine is the issue more than anything else.

[jaxom]

4 hours ago, Schlitzaf said:

AP Arm’s race started by doctrine is the issue more than anything else.

Doctrines rebalanced lethality so marines were harmed and benefiting at roughly the same rate as everyone else when 8th dropped.

[MoshJason]

The Problem with Marines is two-fold

 

#1 - Marines are the Most Common Army, by far.

#2 - The Fantasy Of Marines IS NOT EQUAL to the Table Top of Marines

 

#1 - Marines are the most common Army, any discussion about Marines is really a discussion on X Factions - Codex Space Marines, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Grey Knights, Deathwatch, Space Wolves, Black Templars, Chaos Space Marines, and to a lesser but still valid extent - Thousand Sons, Death Guard and World Eaters. This means that anything that benefits Marines (such as in increase in AP) also *hurts* Marines - for most matches, an increase in their Killing Power is a Decrease in their Staying Power. 

According to Goonhammer - 64% of Players own a Space Marine Army, and 49% Own a Chaos Space Marines army. The next highest? Necrons at 30%. 

This also means that people build lists to handle Marines, especially since Marines are the Mario of the factions, a solid all arounder. In 7th Edition you made sure you had enough AP 3 so that you could pop Marines off objectives, and a few AP2 guns to take out terminators.

 

#2 - The fantasy of Marines is that they, simply put, are better than you.

I know that sounds trite, and vaguely condescending, but it's true - they are Genetically Enhanced Super Humans designed to fight the biggest baddest things in the galaxy. There's Black Library stories where single marines just rampage through enemy planets. On the table top, that's not what they play as at all, instead they play most effectively as strong shock troops designed to utilize a combined-arms style of warfare - you need a good mix of individual squad to get the most out of your army, and you need a lot of bodies. Most Marine players would probably enjoy them more if they used the Custodes rules - that's a lot closer to the Black Library fantasy of "MY Guys are the BIGGEST and BEST and one of my guys is an equal to an entire squad of your guys!" - this means that Marine players don't build lists the way that GW intends - since they are generally building for the fantasy of Marines and not the table top of marines. You don't see this as much with Imperial Guard or Orks, since the fantasy of Imperial Guard is WW1 IN SPACE, and playing it that way is how the codex is designed, with Orks the fantasy is either Green Tide or Ramshackle Horde of Vehicles, and both work really well.

 

TL:DR / Conclusion

My point, more or less, is that reverting AP back to 7th edition's version won't actually help anything, since anything that improves Marines also hurts Marines - which means any time you look at making Marines better you need to be very careful. After all, if we reverted it, people would be upset that everyone takes too much AP3 to counter marines, and if we gave Marines a 3rd wound, people would be upset that their Marines don't feel that they do enough damage. Or, if we gave Marines, say an extra shot on all of their bolters, then people would complain that their Marines are dying too quickly.

 

My solution, and I think the only real solution, is to look at individual weapon profiles and rebalance them. Nonspecialized infantry units, especially core infantry units, shouldn't have native AP on their weapons, with some rare exceptions. This will let 3+ Armor saves feel like 3+'s. 

Edited January 23, 2023 by MoshJason

[Special Officer Doofy]

14 hours ago, Schlitzaf said:

 AP Arm’s race started by doctrine is the issue more than anything else.

 

Yep. Marines are their own worst enemy haha.

[spessmarine]

the old AP system had its drawbacks, what with AP2 or bust, but the all or nothing save does enable things like fine graining ignoring armour saves

if light armour is a 5+ save than AP5 weapons were good for clearing those targets out but didn't devalue 4+ or better saves

certain weapons like bolters, pulse rifles, gauss are supposed to be nasty against infantry so the AP5 or AP4 on them lets them bully light-medium targets but not heavier targets
of course this doesn't always work out so nicely and everyone can just spam AP2 instead

[Reskin]

52 minutes ago, spessmarine said:

..t heavier targets
of course this doesn't always work out so nicely and everyone can just spam AP2 instead

that's my issue, you've got whole squads carrying 4 multi meltas or plasma inceptors.

the free wargear makes this worse now, every normal person is going to be taken these in every unit if it's free.

 

don't give me that "i play for fun" crap either. you won't play much if every game you turn up just to take your models off the table again after the first turn.

 

everyone likes winning, and the glory and accolades that comes with that, even amongst friends. No one likes a one-sided affair. 

[Schlitzaf]

Only fools will do what you describe, only some level GravCannons, HBolters and PlasmaCannons sre all better for units thay can spam MMelta. And even with PlasmaCeptors there is several valid cases for BoltCeptors notably in reliabilty. Sense BoltCeptors can just as reliable delete infantry as PlasmCeptors w/o killing self or babysitting captain. 
 

A Chuncky PlasmCeptor unit requires a build around list to some extent. 

[Karhedron]

Actually Plasmaceptors have Blast so against Units of 6+, they are more effective than Bolterceptors since they can fire without overcharging but kill stuff more reliably due to +2S and and extra 2 points of AP. Having said that, I do normally run my Plasmaceptors with a Captain.

[Schlitzaf]

Yeah, but often tou want to kill/tenderize something like 5 man Scions or BSB. My main point was that there are many cases where PlasmCeptors are not better than BoltCeptors

[Reskin]

8 hours ago, Schlitzaf said:

Only fools will do what you describe, only some level GravCannons, HBolters and PlasmaCannons sre all better for units thay can spam MMelta. And even with PlasmaCeptors there is several valid cases for BoltCeptors notably in reliabilty. Sense BoltCeptors can just as reliable delete infantry as PlasmCeptors w/o killing self or babysitting captain. 
 

A Chuncky PlasmCeptor unit requires a build around list to some extent. 

what....

are...

you...

on...

about?

 

a quick search on each of the marines sub forums on this forum alone Each of the front page army lists, have dread spam with multimelta and plasma weapons.

UM, IH, DA, either that, or bikes and other vehicles with same such weaponry. Minimal troops and the elites were eradicators with multimelta if I read correctly.

 

Most of the YouTube channels I watch post competitive lists for the most part also.

 

only idiots would not take the best guns available now that there is no cost difference. Whatever 1st edition homebrew rules you've likely concocted  have no bearing on 10th edition rule set.

 

Even if you are right and some wont take those guns, that's cool, that's the minority. That's not who I vs. Or how I play. And from the majority of posts on this thread alone, let alone other threads about the state of the game, that's the same feeling for most commenters.

[Reskin]

20 hours ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

 

Yep. Marines are their own worst enemy haha.

been that way for 10000 years.... hahah geddit?

[Schlitzaf]

Most players have absolutely no idea why something is good. PlasmaCeptors are good but to not realize they have a cost investment and no way strictly better than BoltCeptors. Same reason why loyal 32 proliferated, when it was actively bad. The good version of loyal 32 was the loyal brigade. 

 

And most youtubers frankly aren’t that great either. And I feel fairly confident also those msu troop armies will be shown to be lackluster in long run

Edited January 24, 2023 by Xenith
inflammatory language and typos.

[Xenith]

=][= Tidied up some uneccesary comments. Keep it civil folks. =][=

 

On 1/22/2023 at 3:17 PM, Schlitzaf said:

Restore AoC (ONLY ASTARTES Factions). Reduce AP of Weaponry Strength 6 or less,

 

I've been suggesting for a while is to just get rid of invulns overall and improve armour saves. AoC could easily be replicated by making power armour a 2+, and TDA a 1+ save.

 

This also effectively removes the need for invulns: against an AP3 lascannon, TDA would get a 4+ armour save. If you wanted things to ignore any, and all armour, then make it AP-10 instead of needing 2 additional game mechanics, one to award invulnerable saves, the other to ignore invulnerable saves. 

[Karhedron]

13 hours ago, Schlitzaf said:

Yeah, but often tou want to kill/tenderize something like 5 man Scions or BSB. My main point was that there are many cases where PlasmCeptors are not better than BoltCeptors

 

Facing 5-man Scions or whatever, those Plasmceptors are still better since they wound on a 2+ (vs 3+ for Bolterceptors) and negate their saves (as opposed to a 5+ save vs Bolterceptors). Even against small squads, the extra killing power of the plasma weaponry more than compensates for the lower rates of fire.

 

On average, 1 Bolterceptor with 6 shots will kill 1.78 Scions.

On average, 1 Plasmaceptor with 2D3 shots will kill 2.22 Scions

 

Unless you are looking at edge cases like daemonic saves, the Plasmaceptor is always better than the Bolterceptor. And that is before you consider the ability of the Plasmaceptor to overcharge to threaten larger targets. Even if you are fighting daemons, you won't want your Plasmaceptors firing at regular daemon squads when they can be targeting Greater Daemons or heavy support units like the Soul Grinder.

 

The only advantage Bolterceptors ever had was that they were cheaper. If you take that away, Plasmaceptors are better against every single faction.

[Schlitzaf]

6+ Save, Tactical Doctrine exists my friend

[Evil Eye]

10 hours ago, Reskin said:

*Snip*

You DO realize not everyone plays 40K at a competitive level, right? And that competitive/tournament play is not the "norm" around which the game is (or should be) balanced and designed, right? Trying to balance the game around a mode of play it was never intended to be balanced around just ends up making the experience miserable for the majority of players.

[Karhedron]

26 minutes ago, Schlitzaf said:

6+ Save, Tactical Doctrine exists my friend

 

If you are in the Tactical Doctrine, that is true. However the Plasmaceptors also benefit from the Tactical Doctrine and now negate MEQ saves entirely.

[sairence]

58 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

You DO realize not everyone plays 40K at a competitive level, right? And that competitive/tournament play is not the "norm" around which the game is (or should be) balanced and designed, right? Trying to balance the game around a mode of play it was never intended to be balanced around just ends up making the experience miserable for the majority of players.

 

Regardless of what anyone feels the right way to play is, the game objectively *is* balanced around competitive play, for the simple and straightforward reason that competitive play is where heaps of data is avaible and thousand of games are regularly played. GW can get is data only from the same places as everyone else, feedback, events and data collected and submitted by people playing matches.

 

2 out of those 3 are pretty much exclusively going to be from competitive rules game, and I would wager competitive players are also more likely to submit regular feedback.  It's why the balance dataslate is Matched Play only.

 

So, you may not like it, and I'm not suggesting you'd be wrong, but objectively, the game is balanced around competitive play. Because that's where your greatest data samples come from.

Edited January 24, 2023 by sairence
Forgot something

[Special Officer Doofy]

Just now, sairence said:

 

Regardless of what anyone feels the right way to play is, the game objectively *is* balanced around competitive play, for the simple and straightforward reason that competitive play is where heaps of data is avaible and thousand of games are regularly played. GW can get is data only from the same places as everyone else, feedback, events and data collected and submitted by people playing matches.

 

2 out of those 3 are pretty much exclusively going to be from competitive rules game, and I would wager competitive players are also more likely to submit regular feedback. 

 

So, you may not like it, and I'm not suggesting you'd be wrong, but objectively, the game is balanced around competitive play. Because that's where your greatest data samples come from.

 

Yup. I don't get why people try that argument, that the game isn't or shouldn't be balanced on competitive play. It's a competitive game whether you play competitively or not. There's rules, teams, and scores. A winner and a loser. It's your choice to build subpar lists and not play to win. 

 

But there are some fluffy balance things like only one captain, Lord, commander, tyrant (etc...) per Detatchment. That was more to do with the fact you probably wouldn't have 3 captains all with Jump packs and thunder hammers hanging out together. But even then competitive rules superceded that with chaos daemons. They were going to do only one Greater Daemon per Detatchment, which fluff wise would make sense, but balance wise that would neuter chaos daemons.

[jaxom]

On 1/23/2023 at 2:17 AM, Reskin said:

everyone likes winning, and the glory and accolades that comes with that, even amongst friends. No one likes a one-sided affair. 

I think this is why there needs to be a difference between matched play and tournament play. I expect a tournament list to be designed to win and do so as handily as possible. I expect a matched play list to be be competitive and make for a fun game.

[Karhedron]

3 minutes ago, jaxom said:

I think this is why there needs to be a difference between matched play and tournament play. I expect a tournament list to be designed to win and do so as handily as possible. I expect a matched play list to be be competitive and make for a fun game.

 

I don't think that is something you can really enforce in the game design. Ultimately some players will always want to build fluffy lists for fun and others will want to see how much they can optimise their lists, even if it is not a tournament. Ultimately, players need to understand each other's expectations. Good sportsmanship is not something you can really build into the rules of any game.

[sairence]

1 hour ago, Karhedron said:

 

I don't think that is something you can really enforce in the game design. Ultimately some players will always want to build fluffy lists for fun and others will want to see how much they can optimise their lists, even if it is not a tournament. Ultimately, players need to understand each other's expectations. Good sportsmanship is not something you can really build into the rules of any game.

 

Besides, you do have a difference between Matched Play and Competitive Play. Matched Play, as GW designed it, is the core book missions and Tempest fo War. Competitive Play is the Chapter Approved tournament mission packs.

 

With the new Arks of Omen detachment system, the difference between the modes is bigger than ever, because Matched Play does not use the new detachment rules, but still follows the one we've known all throughout 8th and 9th ed.

 

You might say that people in your area only play the one game mode, or that people mix features between the modes, but that's not something you can really blame on GW.

[jaxom]

1 hour ago, Karhedron said:

 

I don't think that is something you can really enforce in the game design. Ultimately some players will always want to build fluffy lists for fun and others will want to see how much they can optimise their lists, even if it is not a tournament. Ultimately, players need to understand each other's expectations. Good sportsmanship is not something you can really build into the rules of any game.

 

I think the original force organization chart and the percentage requirements before that were efforts to enforce it. A tournament list can be run with excellent sportsmanship, and a fluffy list can be run by a poor sportsman. I don't see those concepts connected to the same spectrum.

34 minutes ago, sairence said:

 

Besides, you do have a difference between Matched Play and Competitive Play. Matched Play, as GW designed it, is the core book missions and Tempest fo War. Competitive Play is the Chapter Approved tournament mission packs.

 

With the new Arks of Omen detachment system, the difference between the modes is bigger than ever, because Matched Play does not use the new detachment rules, but still follows the one we've known all throughout 8th and 9th ed.

 

You might say that people in your area only play the one game mode, or that people mix features between the modes, but that's not something you can really blame on GW.

 

Agreed, we are at a relatively unique crux point due to the radical changes between Match Play at launch and Match Play now.

[Arikel]

Been following this post and it is an interesting pickle that it has turned into.  A few thoughts I have had while reading this over:

 

In my opinion, I think the degrading AP system as of today would work well with the original toughness chart where eventually you lost the ability to harm opponents of a much higher toughness than your strength. This means that even if those baseline troops with lasguns and such are able to degrade your armor, they won't even scratch the paint of a mainline battle tank because they are too low Strength to hurt you.

 

It would need a bit of a revision to the toughness stat (and the wounds stats most likely also) in general but a basic idea would be most troops to be T3(tau, baseline humans, eldar), T4 for elite type soldiers and robots(space marines, necrons, orks), T5 for lower level monsters, bikes and unarmored vehicles (mid tier demons, ogryns?, ork buggys and trukks, scout sentinels and other recon walkers), T6 for light Vehicles and bigger demons and nids (light transport tanks like rhinos and the IG ones, armored ork trukks, most standard walkers), T7 for medium tanks and heavy walkers (preds, russ, armigers maybe?), T8 for Heavy tanks, t9-10 only for the meanest of the mean, super heavies and legendary creatures.

 

To allow for troops and other low strength units to still threaten high toughness creatures/vehicles without being overpowered against others, I think adding limited anti-tank capabilities to most infantry squads should be common on top of what they might already be able to take.  This could be represented by krak grenades for pretty much every trooper (a single str 6 ap -2 attack within 12 inches, replacing their normal shooting profiles), and 1 or 2 one shot hunter killer missiles (str 8 or 10 shot, ap-2 or perhaps even better, with a 36 to 48 inch range). The effectiveness of singleshot antitank rockets has been proven to be quite effective, and should be an option for most 40K troopers.  Melta bombs that could be applied as a close combat attack would also be good, especially with a delay (apply one turn, detonates next turn). To prevent abuse of such items, perhaps limiting them to only being able to target vehicles, walkers and monsters would be in order.

 

Under such a system, you would get the satisfaction of being able to play units that are effectively immune to small arms fire, but they would still have to be wary of troops units, especially if they get too close (which is true, unsupported armour units being swarmed by infantry without having infantry support of their own often find themselves with the short end of the stick)

 

Minimum ranges for big guns: 

 

Again taking from real life, most heavy weapons have a minimum effective range. It shouldn't be too punishing, but making things like battle cannons, lascannons and other big, antitank type weaponry have a minimum effective range of 6-12 inches would again boost the survivability of infantry trying to take on tanks. Maybe those heavy bolter sponsons and cupola storm bolters have a reason to exist in the future, as defensive weapons to take out infantry that are too close to use your big guns on.

 

 Mortal wounds, damage saves, and ways to enhance survival: 

There has been some mention of just how deadly the game has gotten, with units generally getting wiped from the table much more often than feels fair. I have some ideas for that as well.

 

Mortal wounds are just silly and shouldn't exist. Just an extra layer of deadly that is not necessary. Invulnerable saves should apply in all cases, hence the name. If one truly wishes to have something extra deadly than the old system of a weapon having a str twice your toughness or greater simply wiping out the target if you fail your save is a much better. The old USR eternal warrior prevented that from happening, and could be generously given out to most character type units or offered as a pointed upgrade to prevent leaders being taken out by a stray missile. It could also be given out to thematic units that are exceptionally tough (Plague Marines come to mind, I am sure there are others)

 

In previous editions, damage from any weapon caused a single wound, and was either saved or unsaved. Currently, missing your save on a powerful weapon will actually cause you to take several damage all at once. In my proposal, powerful weapons would still cause more damage overall, however it would no longer be an all or nothing deal. A hit from a las gun or bolter would cause one wound, you would make one save just as you do now. A hit from a missile launcher could cause up to 6 wound rolls from a single shot,  you would then make up to 6 saves based on the amount of successful wounds. I think it would boost survivability over all, at least for multiwound models, though this could use some tinkering. Some might say that this would slow the game down, but units being more survivable in general does that anyways, and I think this is a more elegant solution that preserves the current d6 commandment the game refuses to move away from.

 

Anyways, just a few thoughts I had while reading all your excellent contributions so far.

 

 

[Cleon]

10 hours ago, Arikel said:

Mortal wounds are just silly and shouldn't exist. Just an extra layer of deadly that is not necessary. Invulnerable saves should apply in all cases, hence the name. If one truly wishes to have something extra deadly than the old system of a weapon having a str twice your toughness or greater simply wiping out the target if you fail your save is a much better. 

 

While I totally agree that this recent trend of super guns doing mortal wounds in addition to the base damage is not helpful, I have no issue with the concept of mortal wounds in the original concept of some psychic powers do them, I'm happy with psykers having the ability (smite and other low output direct damage powers) to do a low number of bypass defences wounds.