I can't help but always wonder why they seem to make 4+ armor basically pointless in 40K. I mean, I guess I can understand due to their extreme love of SMs, but it seems rather ridiculous. Most decent strength weapons have an AP4, which seems like it was given just so it won't be AP3. I mean, why not just make those things AP5 or less? It seems like AP4 is slapped on so many things without a second thought.
AP4 isn't a big deal for power armor, but it makes things like 'eavy armor on orks pretty pointless, among other things.
I really wish they would even out the armor power levels and make 4+ armor options viable in the game.

Agree. There is very little out there these days that isnt at the VERY least AP4. There is also WAYYYYYYY to much AP2...

Given that 3+ saves aren't getting the job done anymore, I'd say 4+ saves are in the same boat. The saving grace is that you are probably paying less per wound, so you lose less when your armor is ignored.

My only real experience with 4+ armor has been with imperial guard storm troopers and veterans. I always felt the 4+ armor was over priced because you rarely get a save, and even when you do get a save, you fail 50% of the time.

Its really an issue with the armor save system in general. Look at 5+ and 6+. You basically never get to make a 5+ or 6+ save, and when you do have the chance it will hardly make a difference.

I run dark eldar. It's a very. rare day when I get to take an armour save. Cover was usually my saving grace, but even those aren't guaranteed.

In a rush to have more models on the table they've been steadily increasing the power level so that you feel like you've been making progress in killing the opponent.

I've had the opposite experience. My fire warriors have always felt downright tanky with their 4+. I guess it's because I'm normally fighting against marines of some kind though so I actually get to make my saves the majority of the time.

In fairness they're resistant to boltguns, the most common and one of the deadliest basic guns in the game.. And against all other basic infantry guns they still have a 50/50 chance of living so, I don't see why people are complaining.

This is from a Guard Grenadier Veteran player here.

Armor saves seem to be pointless in general these days, its all about the cover and low invul saves now.

I do agree with the point that armor in general seems to be pointless nowadays. The old mechanic of weapons reducing your save by a set amount makes much more sense.
It goes in the same boat of how outright ignoring cover is stupid; there should be a modifier.

However, I don't ever rely on 3+ saves anymore but at least a lot of the time I get to at least attempt the save. With 4+ it seems to be a very rare day that a chance for a save happens.

As a nid and dark eldar player I would like some of that 4+ goodness.

What you need is cover that isn't completely negated by the two most powerful armies! lol

Do you face an army with bolters, stormbolters, fleshborers, shruicats, splinter rifles, lasguns, pulse rifles, as its main armament? (i.e. any of them)

Then the 4+ is useful.

Even if you are not taking the saves, it is because you have made the enemy use one of its bigger and more expensive guns to kill one of your 4+ save mooks.

Crystal-Maze speaks the truth. In a shootout, cheaper guys with 4+ can even outlast marines.

I concur with all those saying 4+ is great. I'd even go so far as to say it's possibly the best spot to be. The reason for this being that, across most of the weapons in the game, AP5 is the most common AP band, so anything that can take you from no save to a 50% save. 3+ also does this, but you generally pay more per model and therefore lose more to each AP3 or better shot, which will target you more often.

4+ is strong enough to save you damage from small arms, while not being expensive enough that melta/plasma/grav ect get a great return on investment.

OMG. Someone agreed with me about 4+ armor. I usually get shouted down.

My nid warriors love their 4+. If my opponent is firing krak missiles lascannons or anything S8+ at them to double them out he is not shooting them at my big bugs approaching his lines. Its a win win for me.

At least that is the luck I have been having recently with the new dex

 Paradigm wrote:
I concur with all those saying 4+ is great. I'd even go so far as to say it's possibly the best spot to be. The reason for this being that, across most of the weapons in the game, AP5 is the most common AP band, so anything that can take you from no save to a 50% save. 3+ also does this, but you generally pay more per model and therefore lose more to each AP3 or better shot, which will target you more often.

4+ is strong enough to save you damage from small arms, while not being expensive enough that melta/plasma/grav ect get a great return on investment.

+1

Even back in 5th, I honestly never felt much like my marines 3+ was really that much help. Sheer volumn of fire did them in as easily as it did my 4+ and 5+ models.

Toughness is more useful than armor.

Well I am going to take this opportunity to pimp 2nd ed mechanic of armor save modifers

If that's similar to how WFB handles armor I honestly think I prefer that system. Sure I need to do a little basic math, but I roll less dice.

GorillaWarfare wrote:
My only real experience with 4+ armor has been with imperial guard storm troopers and veterans. I always felt the 4+ armor was over priced because you rarely get a save, and even when you do get a save, you fail 50% of the time.

Its really an issue with the armor save system in general. Look at 5+ and 6+. You basically never get to make a 5+ or 6+ save, and when you do have the chance it will hardly make a difference.

Just how I feel with 3+ saves in this edition lately.

4+ saves are easily negated, absolutely. It's more balanced than the molestation 3+ saves have received though, because at least you aren't paying a premium for that 4+ save.

I gotta jump into this one. First off, i am not making a statement here that considers the current state of the game (low ap everywhere/removes cover). Ok I understand every bodies gripes, I got the AP blues to. So here is what I see. Targets with crap armor saves are meant to be in cover. Tactically, you should put your troops in cover, utilize every scrap of terrain, that is the way those troops are designed to be played. The armor save they do get is a last ditch safety measure for when they at caught out of position. If your guard aren't getting a cover save, your doing it wrong.

On a side note, we all have the riptide/interceptor blues. Here is how I fixed 6th. I made terrain. I mean I made TONS of terrain. Not little hills, not craters, I made buildings, lots of damn buildings, some 4 stories tall. LOS is the real deal in our games. Positioning your units tactically, using occlusive angles, mirror movement with ranged threats, the the simple ability to move units without ever presenting a target. This simple fix has made the game so much more enjoyable for almost all of our gamers. The power gamers don't like that we bricked all their brand new WAC toys, but feth them.

By the by, I am a tau player. I use riptides, and I love the fact that he can no longer shoot EVERYTHING ALL THE TIME.

 LordofHats wrote:
If that's similar to how WFB handles armor I honestly think I prefer that system. Sure I need to do a little basic math, but I roll less dice.

Except that back in the days of 2nd ed and the save modifier system, Space Marines where a massive joke and died almost as easily as Guardsmen on a good day...

Remember that back then, S4 was already a -1 modifier, so Marines most of the time had at best a 4+ save, but typically paid double or more the pts of everyone else's similar infantry. But then take really, really deadly stuff like Plasma, (which granted was even deadlier to use back then - yay plasma grenades!), which had additional modifiers on top of the basic Strength modifier!
Marines were actually bottom feeders back then, simply because outside of Terminators (which were heinously expensive!) they were horrendously overcosted and got little to no added benefit for that 3+ save that seriously inflated their points cost.

The system works in Fantasy primarily because;
1. Even so-called 'elite' units tend to be fairly cheap pts-wise. Knights for example who typically sport 2+ or even 1+ saves tend to at most clock in at 30-35'ish pts/model. (only Chaos Knights break this general rule because well, they're freaking Chaos Knights!)
And that's the very top-end stuff like Blood Knights, Dragon Princes & Cold One Knights/Riders. Most knights only cost 21-25'ish or so pts a pop, which keeps them quite viable even with the hard counters out there.
Your common masses of 'basic' units are again, outside of Chaos Warriors, Daemons of Chaos & Ogre Kingdoms typically no more than 11pts/model. Heck, even most elite infantry units tend to only pay 10-16'ish or so pts/model depending on the army in question!

2. The game's most common strength value is S3 which has no modifier. That's not the case in 40k where the most strength is S4 and S5 is plentiful, which means most average attacks are already nailing -1/-2 to saves.
Added to the larger unit sizes in general, and even the -1 save from S4, (also fairly common), can be absorbed fairly easily.

3. Units in Fantasy are much bigger in general, meaning even if faced with lots of armour modifying attacks, you can typically weather the storm to a point.
If Tactical Squads suddenly because say up to 20 models per squad, then fine, Marines could weather the early added casualties and maintain some fighting effectiveness. 10 dudes though facing down a couple enemy units worth of S4 w/-1 save modifier would be a bad joke however.

4. Shooting is not the 'main' phase of the game, but rather Close Combat & Magic are the make-or-break phases. Shooting is mainly there to do things such as finish off a crippled monster, clear chaff units, remove a rank bonus, etc... It's not meant to clear entire units of grunts or even elite killers like it does in 40k.


To go back to a similar system, you'd have to basically make it so that armour doesn't start getting nailed until the S6/7 mark, otherwise Marines should only cost maybe 4pts more than your basic Guardsman because he's now relying almost entirely on his raw stats to protect him, rather than his 3+ save.
Oh, and cover itself would need to go back to a to-hit modifier system as well!

 BrotherOfBone wrote:
In fairness they're resistant to boltguns, the most common and one of the deadliest basic guns in the game.

I'm sorry, boltguns one of the deadliest? Boltguns are pretty near the bottom in infantry armament power level.

 ImotekhTheStormlord wrote:

 BrotherOfBone wrote:
In fairness they're resistant to boltguns, the most common and one of the deadliest basic guns in the game.

I'm sorry, boltguns one of the deadliest? Boltguns are pretty near the bottom in infantry armament power level.

Hmmm... Off topic a bit, but...

In my opinion:

Pulse rifle (Tau)
Gauss Rifle
Shurikan Catapults
Splinter Rifle
Storm Bolter
Boltgun
Shoota
Fleshborer
Lasgun

Considering that the Boltgun is easily the most common, I feel its position close to the middle of the pack is adequate. However I left Flickering Fire off, because... well it's a weird power and hard to compare.

On the rankings themselves I feel like I could switch Gauss and Shurikan weapons, but the range wins it for me.

The shoota is better than the boltgun. It's assault and has full firepower out to 18". AP in this case is irrelevant in Woundspamhammer.

Shuriken catapults have a 12" max range, combined with mostly being on t3 5+ models, which are APed by Bolters, which have twice the range.

Pseudo rending is powerful, and being Assault is good, but I think the Bolt Gun is a little better overall.

Bharring wrote:
Shuriken catapults have a 12" max range, combined with mostly being on t3 5+ models, which are APed by Bolters, which have twice the range.

Pseudo rending is powerful, and being Assault is good, but I think the Bolt Gun is a little better overall.

I'd agree, but the DA shuriken catapult is better than the boltgun by far.

As someone who has to deal with 5+ and 6+ save models, no, 4+ armour is fantastic.

herpguy wrote:
I can't help but always wonder why they seem to make 4+ armor basically pointless in 40K. I mean, I guess I can understand due to their extreme love of SMs, but it seems rather ridiculous. Most decent strength weapons have an AP4, which seems like it was given just so it won't be AP3. I mean, why not just make those things AP5 or less? It seems like AP4 is slapped on so many things without a second thought.
AP4 isn't a big deal for power armor, but it makes things like 'eavy armor on orks pretty pointless, among other things.
I really wish they would even out the armor power levels and make 4+ armor options viable in the game.

I made this same point some months ago.

4+ saves have always been notably overpriced. There's a reason almost nobody takes the option as an upgrade when it's available from a competitive standpoint. There's relatively few consistently capable 4+sv armor units, most pay a painful premium for that save and just aren't capable of using it well.

It's better than a 5+ against small arms, but still fails quite a bit and is usually on easily wounded T3 models, there's too many heavy weapons with AP4 for them to survive in the open, and AP4 seems to be the default AP GW uses when they want to make something powerful, but not mess with the holy "3+" paradigm, even if it'll rip apart and AV14 tank. Tyrannofexes, Manticores, Hive Guard, Forgefiends, Heavy Venom Cannons, etc being prime examples. A 4+sv also strikes that perfect awful balance between providing little better save over cover, but still having to stay in cover because of all the AP 4 weapons.

Experiment 626 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
If that's similar to how WFB handles armor I honestly think I prefer that system. Sure I need to do a little basic math, but I roll less dice.

Except that back in the days of 2nd ed and the save modifier system, Space Marines where a massive joke and died almost as easily as Guardsmen on a good day...

Remember that back then, S4 was already a -1 modifier, so Marines most of the time had at best a 4+ save, but typically paid double or more the pts of everyone else's similar infantry. But then take really, really deadly stuff like Plasma, (which granted was even deadlier to use back then - yay plasma grenades!), which had additional modifiers on top of the basic Strength modifier!
Marines were actually bottom feeders back then, simply because outside of Terminators (which were heinously expensive!) they were horrendously overcosted and got little to no added benefit for that 3+ save that seriously inflated their points cost.

You seem to ignore the fact that saves were done on two dice back then. 4+ on two dice is still great.

As orks... I want 4+

Okay, how many people actually take a heavy bolter that isn't thrust upon them? how many people go for autocannons to take out Sv4+? How many times do you say "Darn, I wish I had more AP4 in this list" or "Darn, that list is a killer because of all that AP4." Never, that's when. Never, ever.

All the "good" AP4 is S7 or 8. For the most part, these weapons would be the same with AP3, 5 or 6, or even -. They're almost never designed for anti-infantry purposes, and the ones that are are so solely focussed on it that they would never see the light of day if they were forced up to AP5 or 6.

Seriously. Lots of things have AP4. But they have AP4 because it makes them versatile against some armies, not because they're designed or geared towards taking out infantry.

4+ is not useless, it's excellent. It gives you a 50% effectiveness drop from weapons with AP5 or 6 - i.e; the majority of all standard issues. Let's have a look:

Tau, S5AP5
Eldar, S4AP5 with pseudorending
All facets of the imperium, save guard S4AP5
Orks: S4AP5
Dark Eldar: Poisoned 4+ with AP5
'Crons: S4AP5
Nids: S4AP5.

Boltguns don't have AP4, do they? yet every goddamn marine army has boltguns, or bolt pistols. So you feel Sv4+ is underused or underreperesented just because it's worse than a 3+ save? I disagree. Getting your saves against the most common weapons in the game is huge. Don't pay for it, but Don't underestimate it, even for a minute.

 HisDivineShadow wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
If that's similar to how WFB handles armor I honestly think I prefer that system. Sure I need to do a little basic math, but I roll less dice.

Except that back in the days of 2nd ed and the save modifier system, Space Marines where a massive joke and died almost as easily as Guardsmen on a good day...

Remember that back then, S4 was already a -1 modifier, so Marines most of the time had at best a 4+ save, but typically paid double or more the pts of everyone else's similar infantry. But then take really, really deadly stuff like Plasma, (which granted was even deadlier to use back then - yay plasma grenades!), which had additional modifiers on top of the basic Strength modifier!
Marines were actually bottom feeders back then, simply because outside of Terminators (which were heinously expensive!) they were horrendously overcosted and got little to no added benefit for that 3+ save that seriously inflated their points cost.

You seem to ignore the fact that saves were done on two dice back then. 4+ on two dice is still great.

No space marines had one D6 save. Terminators had 2D6.

Edit: Me and my friend are discussing working in -1 to save modifer for AP4 weapons in our games will let you know how it goes.

Oh man, if you 4+ savers play a pre heresy army with one of those ten man dev squads with all autocannons, you'll be hella upset. But in defense of those armies, they're geared to only fight space marines

Experiment 626 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
If that's similar to how WFB handles armor I honestly think I prefer that system. Sure I need to do a little basic math, but I roll less dice.

Except that back in the days of 2nd ed and the save modifier system, Space Marines where a massive joke and died almost as easily as Guardsmen on a good day...

Most of what you mentioned is basically just a problem not with the modifier system, but with the modifiers weapons have.

Make it so things like lasguns don't have any save modifier, maybe bolt guns are -1 or maybe even 0, and heavy bolters are -2 or -1. Make it so strength alone doesn't give you a save modifier like in WFB but rather each weapon has a save modifier (so some weapons could be S6 with no modifier, other things might be S2 but with a -3 modifier to represent they are specifically designed to damage armour).

I despise the AP system and think it's one of the worst things in 40k. The value of armour comes more from what stats you give weapons, not the system (AP vs save modifier), but the AP system is unbalancing.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
Okay, how many people actually take a heavy bolter that isn't thrust upon them? how many people go for autocannons to take out Sv4+? How many times do you say "Darn, I wish I had more AP4 in this list" or "Darn, that list is a killer because of all that AP4." Never, that's when. Never, ever.

All the "good" AP4 is S7 or 8. For the most part, these weapons would be the same with AP3, 5 or 6, or even -. They're almost never designed for anti-infantry purposes, and the ones that are are so solely focussed on it that they would never see the light of day if they were forced up to AP5 or 6.

Seriously. Lots of things have AP4. But they have AP4 because it makes them versatile against some armies, not because they're designed or geared towards taking out infantry.

4+ is not useless, it's excellent. It gives you a 50% effectiveness drop from weapons with AP5 or 6 - i.e; the majority of all standard issues. Let's have a look:

Tau, S5AP5
Eldar, S4AP5 with pseudorending
All facets of the imperium, save guard S4AP5
Orks: S4AP5
Dark Eldar: Poisoned 4+ with AP5
'Crons: S4AP5
Nids: S4AP5.

Boltguns don't have AP4, do they? yet every goddamn marine army has boltguns, or bolt pistols. So you feel Sv4+ is underused or underreperesented just because it's worse than a 3+ save? I disagree. Getting your saves against the most common weapons in the game is huge. Don't pay for it, but Don't underestimate it, even for a minute.

Indeed. Sv4+ is the reason I am considering replacing my Guardians with Dire Avengers for my infantry force, not +6" range.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
Okay, how many people actually take a heavy bolter that isn't thrust upon them? how many people go for autocannons to take out Sv4+? How many times do you say "Darn, I wish I had more AP4 in this list" or "Darn, that list is a killer because of all that AP4." Never, that's when. Never, ever.

All the "good" AP4 is S7 or 8. For the most part, these weapons would be the same with AP3, 5 or 6, or even -. They're almost never designed for anti-infantry purposes, and the ones that are are so solely focussed on it that they would never see the light of day if they were forced up to AP5 or 6.

Seriously. Lots of things have AP4. But they have AP4 because it makes them versatile against some armies, not because they're designed or geared towards taking out infantry.

4+ is not useless, it's excellent. It gives you a 50% effectiveness drop from weapons with AP5 or 6 - i.e; the majority of all standard issues. Let's have a look:

Tau, S5AP5
Eldar, S4AP5 with pseudorending
All facets of the imperium, save guard S4AP5
Orks: S4AP5
Dark Eldar: Poisoned 4+ with AP5
'Crons: S4AP5
Nids: S4AP5.

Boltguns don't have AP4, do they? yet every goddamn marine army has boltguns, or bolt pistols. So you feel Sv4+ is underused or underreperesented just because it's worse than a 3+ save? I disagree. Getting your saves against the most common weapons in the game is huge. Don't pay for it, but Don't underestimate it, even for a minute.

The orks shoota/slugga is Ap -

Those people talking about the RT days or 2nd ed either never played it, or are so old now they can't remember what it was like.

Could you imagine what Eldar fire power would be like if it subtracted 1 apv for every point of str over 3? Apparently you can't. Because if you did you'd know that the volume of str 6-7 fire would leave you with a 6+ or no save at all. Just think about the Tau & their standard str5 wall of fire. MEQ saves would never be better than 5+. Mights as well play IG.

A 4+ save also functions well in CC. That's where those ork nobs wanna be. A word to the wise, that 4+ also works aces in CC for tau & crons. That's what's saving there butts in CC, not a 4 toughness.

Do some Krumpin' and that 4+ armor save feels a lot better in CC.

 Red Marine wrote:
Those people talking about the RT days or 2nd ed either never played it, or are so old now they can't remember what it was like.

Could you imagine what Eldar fire power would be like if it subtracted 1 apv for every point of str over 3? Apparently you can't. Because if you did you'd know that the volume of str 6-7 fire would leave you with a 6+ or no save at all. Just think about the Tau & their standard str5 wall of fire. MEQ saves would never be better than 5+. Mights as well play IG.

A 4+ save also functions well in CC. That's where those ork nobs wanna be. A word to the wise, that 4+ also works aces in CC for tau & crons. That's what's saving there butts in CC, not a 4 toughness.

I think what people want is a system LIKE that in some measure.

Not exactly like it however, a modifier system.

herpguy wrote:
I do agree with the point that armor in general seems to be pointless nowadays. The old mechanic of weapons reducing your save by a set amount makes much more sense.
It goes in the same boat of how outright ignoring cover is stupid; there should be a modifier.

However, I don't ever rely on 3+ saves anymore but at least a lot of the time I get to at least attempt the save. With 4+ it seems to be a very rare day that a chance for a save happens.

Most weapons which would ignore your present armor save would also have rendered your save back in 2nd ed above 6+ anyways.

The design team must think it's pretty important considering how over-costed chainaxes are.

4+ armor really shines in close combat but for shooting it really depends on your local meta. Most people don't take HBs.

The thing for armor saves for me is that I find them logically bizarre. First we roll to hit, then we roll to wound. Then once wounded a model makes an armor save... But it's already wounded? Wouldn't it be more logical to factor armor into toughness somehow, seeing as armor can't really help you after your wounded.

I'd actually like a system where armor enhances toughness and AP values become something more along the lines of negating the toughness enhancement. Less rolling for a little more basic math.

As a sisters player who frequently play against Necrons, my sisters need that armor save because our toughness aint working very well. (Against other infantry.)

The reason for the order is so each player makes his rolls without having to bounce back and forth. The reason for the three roll system is to provide levels of randomness and rules complexity.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
4+ armor really shines in close combat but for shooting it really depends on your local meta. Most people don't take HBs.

Anecdotal evidence like pretty much everything I post, but heavy bolters annoy me immensely as a Tau player. They have the perfect stats to kill my troops choices without wasting any points on excess stat buffs they don't need S6 AP4 with 3 shots, I can't think of a better way to kill fire warriors.

Seriously though, I love my 4+ saves. It really feels like the best spot to be in as far as getting a save vs the largest number of weapons vs paying too much for your save that you might not use.

 dementedwombat wrote:
I can't think of a better way to kill fire warriors.

Two words: Heavy Flamer!

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:

 dementedwombat wrote:
I can't think of a better way to kill fire warriors.

Two words: Heavy Flamer!

If you get close enough to shoot a heavy flamer then I am doing my job seriously wrong! Although blood angels dreadnoughts in drop pods with 2 heavy flamers are doing their best to change this line of thinking. The thing I hate most is that I can't even get a cover save so I can't pull cheesy "go to ground + defensive grenades for a 5+ cover save then stand up for free the next turn with my warlord trait" nonsense.

If you can't tell I'm a pretty laid back Tau player. One riptide because I like the model and pretty much one-2 of every other unit choice in the codex for my army.

A pretty simple (and fair) formula for save modifiers, similar to 2nd edition, is you take the AP of the weapon then subtract one from it. 6 minus this value gives you the saving throw modifier.

So AP5 weapons end up being -1, AP4 -2, AP3 -3, etc.

In 2nd ed., most weapons (AP5 I guess) were -1 save mod. This type of rules change would allow you to save against a weapon of equal AP on the roll of a 6 (so power armor would get a save against AP3 weapons) but less powerful weapons would actually be more damaging. For example, Marines would get 4+ saves against Bolters.



This is obviously only one way of many that you could choose to handle it, but it seems reasonable. My only complaint is that it actually ends up making light armor better and power armor worse. If you were to forego the "subtract one" from that equation, you would be less in line with 2nd ed. but perhaps more in line with what most posters are hoping for.

 phatonic wrote:

The orks shoota/slugga is Ap -

AP6, actually.

Red Marine wrote:Could you imagine what Eldar fire power would be like if it subtracted 1 apv for every point of str over 3? Apparently you can't. Because if you did you'd know that the volume of str 6-7 fire would leave you with a 6+ or no save at all. Just think about the Tau & their standard str5 wall of fire. MEQ saves would never be better than 5+. Mights as well play IG.

You assume people are wanting THE 2nd edition system exactly. I want the 2nd edition system but with rebalanced modifiers. So NOT -1 save for every str over 3, rather each and every weapon has it's own save modifier value, and most basic weapons would be 0 save modifier (lasguns and such), more powerful basic weapons might be -1. Heavy Bolters would probably be either -1 or -2. Autocannons and Assault Cannons would be -2 or -3.

I'll be more than happy to see the AP system die. If it means my marines are saving on 4+ more frequently, so be it.

At the moment 5+ and 6+ is pretty much completely worthless. It seems much more logical to have slightly reduced effectiveness of power armour and make 5+ and 6+ actually worth something.

Scipio Africanus wrote:Okay, how many people actually take a heavy bolter that isn't thrust upon them? how many people go for autocannons to take out Sv4+? How many times do you say "Darn, I wish I had more AP4 in this list" or "Darn, that list is a killer because of all that AP4." Never, that's when. Never, ever.

I think it depends on where and who you play against. My armies actually have a lot of AP4 in them. My IG army and my SW army have a lot of heavy bolters, autocannons and assault cannons in a TAC list... I like them. They're basically great against everything but marines and average against marines.

AP system is better than save modifiers, also more d6 rolling of sixes is better than less d6 rolling when it comes to shooting/ CC.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
AP system is better than save modifiers

But why? It's a less balanced system.

also more d6 rolling of sixes is better than less d6 rolling when it comes to shooting/ CC.

...not quite sure what you're referring to here.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
AP system is better than save modifiers

But why? It's a less balanced system.

If nothing else, the AP system makes more sense from a realism perspective. Most weapons do have a set band of armor/thickness they are able to penetrate, and that is that. The fact that your gun can shoot through a flak jacket does not in any way shape or form make it better able to shoot through 6 inches of steel. If you want to shoot through 6 inches of steel, you need a different gun. End of story. There's no way an AP5 weapon would realistically have an increased chance of shooting through terminator armor.

I'm not sure in what sense it is unbalanced either... you know exactly what you are paying for and you get what you are paying for, with both weapons and armor. In a modifier system, there's a lot more flex to what you are paying for, and better armor saves and better AP weapons are both less useful.

 Hollowman wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
AP system is better than save modifiers

But why? It's a less balanced system.

If nothing else, the AP system makes more sense from a realism perspective. Most weapons do have a set band of armor/thickness they are able to penetrate, and that is that. The fact that your gun can shoot through a flak jacket does not in any way shape or form make it better able to shoot through 6 inches of steel. If you want to shoot through 6 inches of steel, you need a different gun. End of story. There's no way an AP5 weapon would realistically have an increased chance of shooting through terminator armor.

I'm not sure in what sense it is unbalanced either... you know exactly what you are paying for and you get what you are paying for, with both weapons and armor. In a modifier system, there's a lot more flex to what you are paying for, and better armor saves and better AP weapons are both less useful.

I used to think this about realism, too, but then you've got to remember that the system is an abstraction. For example, there's no way an AP5 bolter could pierce Terminator as it stands. But the fact that it is AP5 should increase it's chances, that is to say:

Premises:
1) Terminator is not of uniform thickness everywhere, and has some thin parts, some thicker parts.
2) Different guns have different penetration capabilities; some are more capable of penetrating certain armor thicknesses than others.
3) Boltguns penetrate thicker armor than lasguns.
4) Neither a boltgun nor lasgun should be able to penetrate the thickest part of Terminator armor.

^These I think we all can agree upon. Now argument:

If a boltgun were to strike a thinner portion of the Terminator armor, it would be more likely to penetrate than the lasgun.

Therefore, I can conclude that, in general, bolt weapons would be better at penetrating Terminator armor than a lasgun (although neither weapon is great at the job, the boltgun is clearly better).

However, under the current AP system, a boltgun is no more likely to penetrate Terminator armor than a lasgun, or a sharp stick, or a blade of grass, or an open-handed slap. The Terminator armor is equally resilient against them all. This, I believe, is a mistake that can be rectified by introducing save modifiers. A lasgun, for example, could have no modifier, while the boltgun could have a humble -1. This, I believe, would reflect better the ability of the boltgun to penetrate the thinner plates of armor better than the lasgun, but still gives the Terminator a good chance for a save (i.e. the bolt hitting a thicker plate).

EDIT:
Crucially, the Boltgun in 2nd Edition (IIRC) was Str 4, with a -1 modifier, for a total of a -2 modifier to the target's armor (you got an additional - for every strength above 3). The lasgun was strength 3, but with a -2 modifier, meaning that both weapons could penetrate armor equally well, but the lasgun delivered less overall power. I believe this reflects the laser vs. solid projectile dichotomy quite well, although that's quite a simplification.

Or maybe the Bolter isn't better enough to warrant a difference?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Or maybe the Bolter isn't better enough to warrant a difference?

In that case, why does it warrant AP5 while the lasgun warrants AP- in the current AP system?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Or maybe the Bolter isn't better enough to warrant a difference?

In that case, why does it warrant AP5 while the lasgun warrants AP- in the current AP system?

Because it's much better than the Lasgun at penetrating Flakk Jackets, which are weaker than the weakest spots in Terminator Armour?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Or maybe the Bolter isn't better enough to warrant a difference?

In that case, why does it warrant AP5 while the lasgun warrants AP- in the current AP system?

Because it's much better than the Lasgun at penetrating Flakk Jackets, which are weaker than the weakest spots in Terminator Armour?

Alright, what about battlecannons? Str 8 AP3. Is their penetration not any better against Terminator Armor than an open-handed slap, or a lasgun, or a bolter?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Or maybe the Bolter isn't better enough to warrant a difference?

In that case, why does it warrant AP5 while the lasgun warrants AP- in the current AP system?

Because it's much better than the Lasgun at penetrating Flakk Jackets, which are weaker than the weakest spots in Terminator Armour?

Alright, what about battlecannons? Str 8 AP3. Is their penetration not any better against Terminator Armor than an open-handed slap, or a lasgun, or a bolter?

Not by enough, no. That's just how tough Terminator Armour (and other 2+ saves) are. Look at the AP grading as a sort of logarithmic scale. The step from penetrating 6+ armour (Ork T-Shirts) to 5+ armour (flakk jackets, Guardian armour) isn't too big; neither of the armours are particularly strong, and neither cover much more than parts of the torso and head. On to 4+ save (carapace armour, whatever Fire Warriors wear) where the armour covers most if not all of the body; here the force required to damage the armour is much greater. The difference between 5+ and 4+ is thus bigger than the difference between 5+ and 6+.

On to 3+ (Power Armour, Wraithbone, Tyranid armour thingamajigs), where the armour covers the entire body (or, in the case of Wraithbone, IS the entire body). The armour is made up of complex materials and generally augmented by some sort of technological gizmos and gadgets. The power required to get through something like this is pretty substantial.

2+ armour (Terminator Armour, Tyranid Armoured Shells, Fleshmetal) is armour made from materials of incredible fortitude. A shot would have to be magnitudes more powerful to pierce 2+ armour compared to 3+ armour. As such, even a Battle Cannon or an Earthshaker Cannon, weapons that destroy even 3+ armour, are not strong enough to reliably damage 2+ armour. They're strong, but they've not got the penetrative properties of melta, plasma or a Railgun slug.


As an example, if you had to break through a blast door build to withstand a nuclear blast, throwing a stick of dynamite at the door would be much, much more powerful than slapping the door, but both would have essentially zero chance of doing any damage to the door.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Or maybe the Bolter isn't better enough to warrant a difference?

In that case, why does it warrant AP5 while the lasgun warrants AP- in the current AP system?

Because it's much better than the Lasgun at penetrating Flakk Jackets, which are weaker than the weakest spots in Terminator Armour?

Alright, what about battlecannons? Str 8 AP3. Is their penetration not any better against Terminator Armor than an open-handed slap, or a lasgun, or a bolter?

Not by enough, no. That's just how tough Terminator Armour (and other 2+ saves) are. Look at the AP grading as a sort of logarithmic scale. The step from penetrating 6+ armour (Ork T-Shirts) to 5+ armour (flakk jackets, Guardian armour) isn't too big; neither of the armours are particularly strong, and neither cover much more than parts of the torso and head. On to 4+ save (carapace armour, whatever Fire Warriors wear) where the armour covers most if not all of the body; here the force required to damage the armour is much greater. The difference between 5+ and 4+ is thus bigger than the difference between 5+ and 6+.

On to 3+ (Power Armour, Wraithbone, Tyranid armour thingamajigs), where the armour covers the entire body (or, in the case of Wraithbone, IS the entire body). The armour is made up of complex materials and generally augmented by some sort of technological gizmos and gadgets. The power required to get through something like this is pretty substantial.

2+ armour (Terminator Armour, Tyranid Armoured Shells, Fleshmetal) is armour made from materials of incredible fortitude. A shot would have to be magnitudes more powerful to pierce 2+ armour compared to 3+ armour. As such, even a Battle Cannon or an Earthshaker Cannon, weapons that destroy even 3+ armour, are not strong enough to reliably damage 2+ armour. They're strong, but they've not got the penetrative properties of melta, plasma or a Railgun slug.


As an example, if you had to break through a blast door build to withstand a nuclear blast, throwing a stick of dynamite at the door would be much, much more powerful than slapping the door, but both would have essentially zero chance of doing any damage to the door.

Right. But what about different levels of nuclear blast? Why would a 12 kiloton nuke smash the door wide open with no chance of failure, while a 11.99 kiloton nuke would be of no consequence?

4+ is great. Best armor out there if you face grav weapons, bolters, want to keep things alive (50% saves) but don't want to pay for 3+ protection.

If anything, 4+ is the perfect sweet spot for 6th ed.

I question the OP's 40k IQ, seriously, with this thread

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Or maybe the Bolter isn't better enough to warrant a difference?

In that case, why does it warrant AP5 while the lasgun warrants AP- in the current AP system?

Because it's much better than the Lasgun at penetrating Flakk Jackets, which are weaker than the weakest spots in Terminator Armour?

Alright, what about battlecannons? Str 8 AP3. Is their penetration not any better against Terminator Armor than an open-handed slap, or a lasgun, or a bolter?

Not by enough, no. That's just how tough Terminator Armour (and other 2+ saves) are. Look at the AP grading as a sort of logarithmic scale. The step from penetrating 6+ armour (Ork T-Shirts) to 5+ armour (flakk jackets, Guardian armour) isn't too big; neither of the armours are particularly strong, and neither cover much more than parts of the torso and head. On to 4+ save (carapace armour, whatever Fire Warriors wear) where the armour covers most if not all of the body; here the force required to damage the armour is much greater. The difference between 5+ and 4+ is thus bigger than the difference between 5+ and 6+.

On to 3+ (Power Armour, Wraithbone, Tyranid armour thingamajigs), where the armour covers the entire body (or, in the case of Wraithbone, IS the entire body). The armour is made up of complex materials and generally augmented by some sort of technological gizmos and gadgets. The power required to get through something like this is pretty substantial.

2+ armour (Terminator Armour, Tyranid Armoured Shells, Fleshmetal) is armour made from materials of incredible fortitude. A shot would have to be magnitudes more powerful to pierce 2+ armour compared to 3+ armour. As such, even a Battle Cannon or an Earthshaker Cannon, weapons that destroy even 3+ armour, are not strong enough to reliably damage 2+ armour. They're strong, but they've not got the penetrative properties of melta, plasma or a Railgun slug.


As an example, if you had to break through a blast door build to withstand a nuclear blast, throwing a stick of dynamite at the door would be much, much more powerful than slapping the door, but both would have essentially zero chance of doing any damage to the door.

Right. But what about different levels of nuclear blast? Why would a 12 kiloton nuke smash the door wide open with no chance of failure, while a 11.99 kiloton nuke would be of no consequence?

Because that is not how the AP scaling system works. It is a general representation of the armour piercing capabilities of a given weapon. A bolter has almost a guaranteed chance of bypassing flak armour, but doesn't have quite the punch to go through carapace armour, so is designated AP 5 accordingly. Any chance of failiure will be represented in the to hit or to wound rolls (ie only causing a minor flesh wound, the round is redirected by the shape of the armour, etc). In this system, your difference of 0.01 kiloton force in a nuke would be rounded up. And in 40k, there is always a chance for faliure; when your nuke is deployed right, it will easily go through the door. But a small miscalculation could have the same nuke merely scorching the door.

As for the slap to battlecannon reference, I'm not sure if anyone's remembering the added strength of such a weapon, and ergo the higher chance of generating wounds. Terminator armour does have weak points, so barring a weapon that can surely get through them, the best way to break them is by drowning them in gunfire. The stronger, the better. One stick of dynamite may not do much damage to those doors, but keep throwing them and you'll do something. The same number of slaps will have a very low damage output, but will do more than one. A boltgun will do better against terminator armour than a lasgun because it has more raw power. Same as for a heavy bolter - it isn't geared to dealing with that kind of armour, but has a better chance to through its strength and rate of fire over the bolter.

I'd almost go as far as to say they've made saves pointless all together as with all the shots at AP2/3 ignore cover what is the point of a save anyways? I mean either be shot and take 20+ wounds(because everything is str 5 or higher and re-rolls are so abundant) and have to save them on a 2+ or just you don't have any as Heldrakes, ignore cover Tau and Ion Accelerators/ Dark Reaper Star/ Grav gun bikers with ignore cover Libby/ tau commander or / Eldar and rending everything/ignore cover Wave-serpents, pretty much wipe anything it fires at... and that right there is a lot of armies... let me re-phrase that (The armies being played right now, you don't see too many Blood angel players, not too many orks and certainly no longer any nids because they can't even cross the field!), so really I would actually like to see them pull back on Ignore cover and re-roll to hit and actually get back to a game where taking a combo doesn't mean auto-wipe per turn.

As a SM player, I feel the same about my 3+ honestly. There are soo many large blast AP2 pie plates being tossed about now that I am losing 7-8 marines in one go. And half the time that's when they are in cover!

 SickSix wrote:
As a SM player, I feel the same about my 3+ honestly. There are soo many large blast AP2 pie plates being tossed about now that I am losing 7-8 marines in one go. And half the time that's when they are in cover!

Yes, I went two games in a row where I never even got a save.

My Imperial Guard, Dark Eldar and Orks cry rivers of tears for all you Power Armour players complaining about your saves being ignored.

Bu-frigging-hu.

Steelmage99 wrote:
My Imperial Guard, Dark Eldar and Orks cry rivers of tears for all you Power Armour players complaining about your saves being ignored.

Bu-frigging-hu.

I understand all of those out there who fell we are getting what we should get, but The two thing Marines are sobose to be is a Forgivein Jack of Trades army.
We are suposed to be able to absorb lots of damage with 1/2 to 1/3 the models Orks and Guard are putting on the table.
Your Armies are suposed to die in droves, thats why you are cheep.

Steelmage99 wrote:
My Imperial Guard, Dark Eldar and Orks cry rivers of tears for all you Power Armour players complaining about your saves being ignored.

Bu-frigging-hu.

Except you are not paying huge points for a save. What you ARE getting is mass wounds. Which is what you want in this kind of environment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:
My Imperial Guard, Dark Eldar and Orks cry rivers of tears for all you Power Armour players complaining about your saves being ignored.

Bu-frigging-hu.

I understand all of those out there who fell we are getting what we should get, but The two thing Marines are sobose to be is a Forgivein Jack of Trades army.
We are suposed to be able to absorb lots of damage with 1/2 to 1/3 the models Orks and Guard are putting on the table.
Your Armies are suposed to die in droves, thats why you are cheep.

When marines die in droves, the game ends real fast.

Marines pay for a lot more than wearing a small tank as armour.

Steelmage99 wrote:
My Imperial Guard, Dark Eldar and Orks cry rivers of tears for all you Power Armour players complaining about your saves being ignored.

Bu-frigging-hu.

Why? Your Imperial Guard, Dark Eldar and Orks aren't paying 15 ppm.

It's like... do you even actually play the game at all?

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Marines pay for a lot more than wearing a small tank as armour.

Which SHOULD be reflected in-game, but isn't.

I feel 4+ armour is better in this edition compared to last. In 5th edition, you nearly always got 4+ cover save, so what was the point of 4+ armour? Ok, it protected in close combat but if you played Tau, it didn't matter, in fact it was sometimes detrimental since you wanted to lose combat.

Sure, nowadays there seems to be overwhelming amount of low-AP weaponry so armour saves often don't help a lot.

If armour save modifiers returned I'd want to see my terminators saving on 2D6 again.

Otherwise, no.

Off the top of my head.

Bolters were -1 save
Lasguns were -1 save
Shuriken catapults were -2
Plasma guns and pistols were -2
Meltaguns were -4
Assault cannons were -4
Krak missiles were -6
Lascannons were -6

Power swords were -3
Power axes were -2 one handed, or -3 two handed
Power fists were -5
Lightning claws were -5
Chainfists were -5
Thunder hammers were -5 (I don't recall any melee weapons going to -6)

Thunder hammers were awesome. Auto-wound/auto armour penetration, D6 wounds.

 Hollowman wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
AP system is better than save modifiers

But why? It's a less balanced system.

If nothing else, the AP system makes more sense from a realism perspective. Most weapons do have a set band of armor/thickness they are able to penetrate, and that is that. The fact that your gun can shoot through a flak jacket does not in any way shape or form make it better able to shoot through 6 inches of steel. If you want to shoot through 6 inches of steel, you need a different gun. End of story. There's no way an AP5 weapon would realistically have an increased chance of shooting through terminator armor.

The game is an abstraction of reality. A lasgun CAN kill a terminator. It has a 1 in 6 chance. As does a boltgun, as does a bare fisted punch, as does a Chem Cannon. All are 1 in 6. This is not anymore realistic than any other system.

I'm not sure in what sense it is unbalanced either... you know exactly what you are paying for and you get what you are paying for, with both weapons and armor. In a modifier system, there's a lot more flex to what you are paying for, and better armor saves and better AP weapons are both less useful.

You can read why it's unbalanced in this very thread. Someone saying they went 2 games without being able to take a save, because there is so much AP 3, the points they paid for their 3+ save was pretty much wasted. Now, the army that had the AP3 obviously paid the points to get that AP3. If they turn around and face a horded Tyranid army, those points were wasted. My IG army with lots of AP4 is only average against a Marine army, but against a non-MEQ army, it's awesome. That is unbalanced. If what is currently AP4 instead had a -2 save modifier (and had an increase in points to match), then those AP4 weapons would be worth similar value regardless of what army you play against.

I like the IDEA that one weapon is awesome against power armour and another weapon is awesome against hordes but sucky against power armour... however from an actual game perspective, that is unbalancing.

IMO, the best system is to have 3 different stats for each weapon...

Strength
Save Modifier
Armour Penetration

The strength defines how well you deal with toughness, so things like monstrous creatures. Save Modifer defines how well you get through infantry armour. Something like an Autocannon is obviously a better armour penetrator than a lasgun, and I feel that it should be represented as such regardless of whether you are playing against Tyranids or Space Marines (at the moment it is a better armour penetrator against Tyranids, but not Space Marines). Armour Penetration is how well you get through vehicular armour, and it doesn't have to be linked to Strength or AP/Save modifer at all.

Currently we have a rock paper scissor system within the AP system. This is what I don't like and feel is inherently unbalancing. If you changed the rock paper scissor system to Str vs Toughness, Save Modifier vs Infantry Armour, Armour Penetration vs Vehicle Armour, I think it'd be a much more balanced system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Freman Bloodglaive wrote:
If armour save modifiers returned I'd want to see my terminators saving on 2D6 again.

If the save modifier system came back, I could see terminators getting a double 3+ save. So roll to save once, if you get a 3+, you save, if you don't, you roll again and get a 2nd 3+ save.

The modifiers eat in to the first save first, then the 2nd save, so against a -2 save weapon, you'd get a 5+ save followed by a 3+ save. Against a -6 save modifier weapon, your first save would be entirely negated, but you'd still get a 5+ save from the 2nd save.

Maybe that's too much maths for your average gamer, but I think it's better than the old 2D6 system which required you to roll individually for each wound you took.

A lasgun has a 1/3 chance of wounding a terminator then a 1/6 chance of bypassing its save, so about a 1/18 chance of inflicting a wound.

A bolter has a 1/2 chance of wounding a terminator then a 1/6 chance of bypassing its save, so about a 1/12 chance of inflicting a wound.

A bolter is about 50% better at killing terminators than a lasgun is.

An autocannon has a 5/6 chance of wounding a terminator then a 1/6 chance of bypassing its save so about a 5/36 chance of inflicting a wound.

An autocannon is about 67% better at killing terminators than a bolter is.

AP4 weapons often have multiple shots which make them even better at killing terminators than high strength single shot weapons.

I could do the calculations for that but I dislike doing binomials in my head.

 Lobukia wrote:
4+ is great. Best armor out there if you face grav weapons, bolters, want to keep things alive (50% saves) but don't want to pay for 3+ protection.

If anything, 4+ is the perfect sweet spot for 6th ed.

I question the OP's 40k IQ, seriously, with this thread

I think the problem with 4+ saves is most armies that have them don't have a lot of them. If EVERYTHING in your army had a 4+ save, it'd be pretty good. If the only thing in your army that has a 4+ save is Tyranid Warriors, Hive Guard, and Biovores... guess what every single Heavy Bolter is going to be aiming at, lol.

Freman Bloodglaive wrote:
A lasgun has a 1/3 chance of wounding a terminator then a 1/6 chance of bypassing its save, so about a 1/18 chance of inflicting a wound.

A bolter has a 1/2 chance of wounding a terminator then a 1/6 chance of bypassing its save, so about a 1/12 chance of inflicting a wound.

A bolter is about 50% better at killing terminators than a lasgun is.

An autocannon has a 5/6 chance of wounding a terminator then a 1/6 chance of bypassing its save so about a 5/36 chance of inflicting a wound.

An autocannon is about 67% better at killing terminators than a bolter is.

AP4 weapons often have multiple shots which make them even better at killing terminators than high strength single shot weapons.

I could do the calculations for that but I dislike doing binomials in my head.

A direct hit from a Battlecannon, Manticore missile, or Basilisk shell has an exactly equal chance of killing a Terminator to a multilaser or scatter laser, while being infinitely better at turning Land Raiders to paste.

Why?

AP should change with range, it would make armour saves more viable unless you were being blasted at short range, then again, BS should change at range also.

All plasma based weapons should change from AP2 to AP3 for a start, and a melta gun should be AP1 within 6 inches, AP2 within 9 and AP3 at +9. They should be powerful weapons but come with an inherent risk, in that you must get really close to get the full benefit, it also makes more sense for the double Armour penetration for vehicles, why wouldn't it struggle against heavy Armour in the same way.

I know my example doesn't apply to 4+ but a heavy bolter should only be ap4 at sub half range for example and then make all but certain weapons the same - a rail rifle should be at full AP for the whole shot .

Whether it's realistic or not it doesn't matter, the firefights should be up close and personal and it would make assault more viable again without actually changing any assault rules whilst slightly nerfing the boring gun line as it would require movement.

Why? Your Imperial Guard, Dark Eldar and Orks aren't paying 15 ppm.

those units in venoms do . Same with my vets . And unlike marines neither the DE , nor the IG have a safty net in form of ATSKNF.

As an old 2ed player i like ap system better. A weapon either penetrates or not. Less math and more sense. Of corse bad luck always plays a role in real life: here 1 always fails.

Maybe some weapon stats shall be revised though. Marines sound be more durable (I'm IG player) and less abundant, use lots of cover, have cover to hit modifiers, have range modifiers...

Wait, that's another game!

IIRC in 2nd ed the -1 over S3 was applied only If weapon did't have its own modifier, for example to S in CC but I might be wrong.

I like AP, but I think armour should have two stats: their save and their pen resistance (PR). This way the AP of the weapon is compared to the PR of the armour to determine whether or not they get their save, then you roll the save.
Take Ork Boyz, they don't wear a lot of armour, hence a 6+ save, but the armour they do wear is really thick and probably isn't easily penetrated by a lasgun. So if Ork Boyz armour had a 6+ save with a PR of 4 they could still get their armour save against lasguns without actually increasing the save.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Freman Bloodglaive wrote:
A lasgun has a 1/3 chance of wounding a terminator then a 1/6 chance of bypassing its save, so about a 1/18 chance of inflicting a wound.

A bolter has a 1/2 chance of wounding a terminator then a 1/6 chance of bypassing its save, so about a 1/12 chance of inflicting a wound.

A bolter is about 50% better at killing terminators than a lasgun is.

An autocannon has a 5/6 chance of wounding a terminator then a 1/6 chance of bypassing its save so about a 5/36 chance of inflicting a wound.

An autocannon is about 67% better at killing terminators than a bolter is.

AP4 weapons often have multiple shots which make them even better at killing terminators than high strength single shot weapons.

I could do the calculations for that but I dislike doing binomials in my head.

A direct hit from a Battlecannon, Manticore missile, or Basilisk shell has an exactly equal chance of killing a Terminator to a multilaser or scatter laser, while being infinitely better at turning Land Raiders to paste.

Why?

Why indeed! I think this is another case for vehicles having wounds, toughness, and armor saves.

I fully agree with Tanks having a pen resistance AND a save.

It would be just like rolling to wound and then making your armor save on infantry.

Makumba wrote:

Why? Your Imperial Guard, Dark Eldar and Orks aren't paying 15 ppm.

those units in venoms do . Same with my vets . And unlike marines neither the DE , nor the IG have a safty net in form of ATSKNF.

How are you paying 15 PPM for Vets?

Further, IG have Orders (GBITF), no?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Makumba wrote:

Why? Your Imperial Guard, Dark Eldar and Orks aren't paying 15 ppm.

those units in venoms do . Same with my vets . And unlike marines neither the DE , nor the IG have a safty net in form of ATSKNF.

How are you paying 15 PPM for Vets?

Further, IG have Orders (GBITF), no?

You are not seriously equating Get Back In The Fight with And They Shall Know No Fear, are you?

.. people complain about the storyline never moving forward and, yet, here we have all these aliens suddenly adapting to better technologies to fight all these bald apes, and yet people complain about that, too. The Imperium will develop armor sufficient to reduce the effectiveness of these new hyper-penetrating weapons in a few thousand years. Which is hell of fast for the Imperium.

Steelmage99 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Makumba wrote:

Why? Your Imperial Guard, Dark Eldar and Orks aren't paying 15 ppm.

those units in venoms do . Same with my vets . And unlike marines neither the DE , nor the IG have a safty net in form of ATSKNF.

How are you paying 15 PPM for Vets?

Further, IG have Orders (GBITF), no?

You are not seriously equating Get Back In The Fight with And They Shall Know No Fear, are you?

No, I'm just pointing out that Guard have their own Morale shenanigans too.

My Nobz love their 4+ save in CC. It helps them survive and kill more squishies. xD

That being said a 4+ save is an awesome advantage in CC and have saved my Orks a bunch of times and sometimes I would even be happy to swap my Daemons 5++ for a 4+. Even against shooting its still good but I kinda have to say I see the flaws (mostly since I love autocannons) but as alot of people have noted its still a good save and I would not call it pointless.

 LordofHats wrote:
Even back in 5th, I honestly never felt much like my marines 3+ was really that much help. Sheer volumn of fire did them in as easily as it did my 4+ and 5+ models.

Toughness is more useful than armor.

*Nurgle player bowing his head*

 PrinceRaven wrote:
As someone who has to deal with 5+ and 6+ save models, no, 4+ armour is fantastic.

I'm in the same boat since I like to play Orks. When you play 6+ saves consistently, anything better looks amazing.

4+ saves aren't all that hard done by - most basic infantry weapons (bolters etc) are AP 5 and things like grav guns, missile blasts, light templates and wave serpent shields hate a 4+ save.

What I'd like to see is a combination of the AP mechanic and save modifier mechanic. Every weapon would have both an AP stat and a save modifier. If the weapon's AP is higher than the target's save, the target gets to make its unmodified save as usual. But if the AP matches or is lower than the target's save, instead of negating the save completely you simply apply the save modifier. This would allow for a lot more diversity in weapon profiles, and if applied correctly would effectively make good armor more useful. Krak missiles with a -3 save modifier would still negate 4+ and worse but would allow Space Marines a small chance of surviving, for example. You could cook up entirely new types of weapon with low AP but small save modifiers. AP 2, -1 Sv weapons could be interesting.

Instead of armour saves on the profile, every model should have an Armor value, ranging from 1-10. Every weapon will have an AP value, ranging from 1-10. In order to determine your armor save, consult a chart . Very much like strength vs. toughness, if your Armor Value equals the AP of the weapon, you get a 4+ save. Terminators for instance can have an armor value of 8, and plasma guns would have an AP of 8, so terminators would get a 4+ save. Meltas could have an AP of 10.

AP is terrible and one thing people seem to be neglecting with all the talk of 2nd Ed is that weapons had another modifier- range. Weapons could get modifiers based on range (for example bolters were +1 at short range). That and you had other hit modifiers that altered a models chance of dying. Yes, your -2 save modifier might make my power armour only 5+, but your plasma gun gets a -1 at long range and I'm in heavy cover so you're at -3 to hit. Fire away. Turns out controlling that stream of plasma gets tricker the further away it gets, which is another way to balance things.

It amuses me that people are happy with a system that will automatically bypass armour- power armour just can't stand up to a lascannon- but are perfectly willing to accept that same, ceramite obliterating weapon might just fail to wound a human 1 in 6 times. Even 'instant death' weapons have a 17% utter fail rate. If there was a place to apply automatic success, it's in wounding.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:


You are not seriously equating Get Back In The Fight with And They Shall Know No Fear, are you?

No, I'm just pointing out that Guard have their own Morale shenanigans too.

That's like saying; "I might have a 3+ armour save, but you have a 5+....and they are both armour saves, so you are fiiiine."

 Lobukia wrote:
4+ is great. Best armor out there if you face grav weapons, bolters, want to keep things alive (50% saves) but don't want to pay for 3+ protection.

If anything, 4+ is the perfect sweet spot for 6th ed.

I question the OP's 40k IQ, seriously, with this thread

And yet 4+sv armies and units aren't exactly overrunning game tables.

In the entirety of 40k, about the only 4+sv units you see with any regularity are Fire Warriors, Dire Avengers, Harpy/Hive Crones, Hive Guard, Necron Warriors, and maybe Swooping Hawks once in a while. Add in DKoK Grenadiers in Assault Brigade lists if you include Forgeworld. Half of those are Troops units, sometimes one of two Troops choices.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
4+ is great. Best armor out there if you face grav weapons, bolters, want to keep things alive (50% saves) but don't want to pay for 3+ protection.

If anything, 4+ is the perfect sweet spot for 6th ed.

I question the OP's 40k IQ, seriously, with this thread

And yet 4+sv armies and units aren't exactly overrunning game tables.

In the entirety of 40k, about the only 4+sv units you see with any regularity are Fire Warriors, Dire Avengers, Harpy/Hive Crones, Hive Guard, Necron Warriors, and maybe Swooping Hawks once in a while. Add in DKoK Grenadiers in Assault Brigade lists if you include Forgeworld. Half of those are Troops units, sometimes one of two Troops choices.

You forgot Scouts as well.

I just think the main problem with the 4+ save is most armies come with enough AP4 to kill most your 4+ save troops in a couple of turns. But it depends on the armies in question of course. Personally I love seeing lots of expensive 4+ save troops lined up against me because of all the AP4 multishot or template weapons I like to take.

That's because armies come packing enough firepower to shoot huge amounts of meqs off the table. That's not the fault of the 4+ save.

Steelmage99 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:


You are not seriously equating Get Back In The Fight with And They Shall Know No Fear, are you?

No, I'm just pointing out that Guard have their own Morale shenanigans too.

That's like saying; "I might have a 3+ armour save, but you have a 5+....and they are both armour saves, so you are fiiiine."

GBITF can be used for Go to Ground shenanigans, you know.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
4+ is great. Best armor out there if you face grav weapons, bolters, want to keep things alive (50% saves) but don't want to pay for 3+ protection.

If anything, 4+ is the perfect sweet spot for 6th ed.

I question the OP's 40k IQ, seriously, with this thread

And yet 4+sv armies and units aren't exactly overrunning game tables.

In the entirety of 40k, about the only 4+sv units you see with any regularity are Fire Warriors, Dire Avengers, Harpy/Hive Crones, Hive Guard, Necron Warriors, and maybe Swooping Hawks once in a while. Add in DKoK Grenadiers in Assault Brigade lists if you include Forgeworld. Half of those are Troops units, sometimes one of two Troops choices.

You forgot Scouts as well.

You only ever really see Scouts sitting in cover with Camo cloaks (typically sporting a 3+ or 2+ cover save), and usually not more than one unit of them, at least not in my experience.

The 4+ is nice when I lob all kinds of AP 5 ignores cover around, though. I'm a marine player, I don't get AP 2 ignores cover. People get 4+ saves against my lists all the time. But I actually use flamers.