Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I know this idea's been kicked around FOREVER and indeed, 2nd edition had rules for it. The main argument against it is that replacing AP values with a negative modifier that would ignore the same armor save as it's equivalent AP value causes weapons to become too strong. I.E. Space Marines, one of the most resilient factions in the game average only a 5+ armor save against the small arms fire of most factions. But still, there's something woefully off about a krak missile blowing a Space Marine out of his boots and the same missile not even registering to a Terminator.. I mean Terminators are badass, but bad ass enough to absorb the impact of an anti-tank warhead and just grin about it afterwards? That's a little much in my opinion. So, onto the point how do you modify armor saves without overpowering the weapons in general?
What about this as a rule: If a weapon's AP value is 1 away from ignoring an armor save it reduces that armor save by 1. For example, a heavy bolter's AP 4 is 1 away from ignoring a power armor save of 3+. That 3+ would then be reduced to a 4+. A krak missile would reduce a Terminator's armor to a 3+. Now, the Terminator suddenly has to pay a bit more attention to any AP 3 weapons pointed his way without saddling him with a 5+ or 6+ save and Space Marines actually have something to worry about when they see heavy bolters across the table from them.
What do you think?

Interesting rule. I always suggested that you have the -1 Modifier as a special rule. A la "High impact" for example. But the streamlined approach is also nice, imo.

Greets
Schepp himself

P.S.: You could even give Terminators As 1+ then, which would be badass!

a few questions, would this affect invulnerable saves? if it doesn't, they'd be significantly more valuable and they may have to update all the codex's for the next edition which includes that. Wait.... that's a good thing.... lol.

crazypsyko666 wrote:a few questions, would this affect invulnerable saves? if it doesn't, they'd be significantly more valuable and they may have to update all the codex's for the next edition which includes that. Wait.... that's a good thing.... lol.

yh, another 10 year wait will be great

crazypsyko666 wrote:a few questions, would this affect invulnerable saves? if it doesn't, they'd be significantly more valuable and they may have to update all the codex's for the next edition which includes that. Wait.... that's a good thing.... lol.

why would it affect invulnerable saves? It's meant to make weapons that outright put down a unit with one armor save a whee bit more effective against units with an armor save just 1 point better.
AP 6 shootas would then reduce flak armor to a 6+ armor save.
AP 5 shurikens would then reduce carapace armor to a 5+ armor save.
AP 4 heavy bolters would then reduce necron's to a 4+ armor save.
AP 3 Tau plasma would then reduce Mega-Armor to a 3+ armor save.
Not overpowering, but enough to keep Space Marines from going "oh autocannons, at least I should be able to save 2/3s of whatever wounds"

I just prefer what me and my gaming club used for ages before we actually bought the rulebook; AP=Armour save reduces by 1. Only if it's lower does it cancel. EG Termy hit by PG would have 3+, Bolter vs Guardsman would have 6+

That sounds pretty good. I also wish they would have some sort of AP values for close combat weapons, instead of the standard power weapon/powerfist/monstrous creature generalizations. An Ork Nob with a 'uge choppa is S6, S7 when he charges, but it's no a power weapon so even guardsmen get their normal save against it. That's just not right!

warpcrafter wrote:That sounds pretty good. I also wish they would have some sort of AP values for close combat weapons, instead of the standard power weapon/powerfist/monstrous creature generalizations. An Ork Nob with a 'uge choppa is S6, S7 when he charges, but it's no a power weapon so even guardsmen get their normal save against it. That's just not right!

I have long toyed with the idea of expanding the rules for power weapons. The idea I had was to add lesser and greater power weapons. A "lesser" power weapon would reduce enemy armor saves by 2. A "normal" power weapon at that point would reduce armor saves by 3-4 (haven't decided which works better) and a "greater" power weapon would ignore armor saves totally. Point costs for greater power weapons would be equal to current power weapon costs, while normal power weapons would be 30% cheaper and lesser power weapons would be 60% cheaper.
You could even replace chainfists and eviscerators with "massive" power weapons who gain +d6 armor penetration.

themandudeperson wrote:

crazypsyko666 wrote:a few questions, would this affect invulnerable saves? if it doesn't, they'd be significantly more valuable and they may have to update all the codex's for the next edition which includes that. Wait.... that's a good thing.... lol.

why would it affect invulnerable saves? It's meant to make weapons that outright put down a unit with one armor save a whee bit more effective against units with an armor save just 1 point better.
AP 6 shootas would then reduce flak armor to a 6+ armor save.
AP 5 shurikens would then reduce carapace armor to a 5+ armor save.
AP 4 heavy bolters would then reduce necron's to a 4+ armor save.
AP 3 Tau plasma would then reduce Mega-Armor to a 3+ armor save.
Not overpowering, but enough to keep Space Marines from going "oh autocannons, at least I should be able to save 2/3s of whatever wounds"

well then that answers my question, doesn't it? asking a stupid question can be better than not asking at all. it would make the point values for pieces with invulnerable saves significantly more valuable, like storm shields, rosarius' terminator armor.... it's a good idea, but in terms of practicality it may not be possible, because you'd need to re write every codex's AP values and invulnerable save values. it's a good idea, but i can see why games workshop couldn't do it. and yeah, statu, it would take forever.

Great idea on paper, bad idea in use.

Hi all.
The problem is ASM lets weapon strenght modify armours ability to stop damage.
This is ineficient as you hve to apply additional modifiers, adding unecissary complication.

The problem with the AP system is the efficiency scales exponential increase, and the non scalable results.(All or nothing.)

If we look at the way weapons ands armour work.
Weapons are designed to inflict damage.
Armour is developed to reduce -negate damage.
Therfore if you simply deduct the armour value from the strenght of hit (damage) , you get useful scalable results without additional modifiers.

In an alternate rule set all units get an AR value from 1 to 20.('Tee shirt save' to 'super heavy' armoured vehicle.)

ALL armour is effective vs all weapons.
Just some armour desnt stop some weapons killing the occupant(s)!

(Mind you the sort of game that has this sort of straight forward rules , has far more gameplay than 40k, so you probably would not enjoy it.)

Happy gaming
Lanrak.

crazypsyko666 wrote:
well then that answers my question, doesn't it? asking a stupid question can be better than not asking at all. it would make the point values for pieces with invulnerable saves significantly more valuable, like storm shields, rosarius' terminator armor.... it's a good idea, but in terms of practicality it may not be possible, because you'd need to re write every codex's AP values and invulnerable save values. it's a good idea, but i can see why games workshop couldn't do it. and yeah, statu, it would take forever.
Great idea on paper, bad idea in use.

Meh, it's no different than now, where armor is less important due to the proliferation of cover saves and melta weapons are all powerful due to changes in the damage charts.

Lanrak wrote:Hi all.
The problem is ASM lets weapon strenght modify armours ability to stop damage.
This is ineficient as you hve to apply additional modifiers, adding unecissary complication.
The problem with the AP system is the efficiency scales exponential increase, and the non scalable results.(All or nothing.)
If we look at the way weapons ands armour work.
Weapons are designed to inflict damage.
Armour is developed to reduce -negate damage.
Therfore if you simply deduct the armour value from the strenght of hit (damage) , you get useful scalable results without additional modifiers.
In an alternate rule set all units get an AR value from 1 to 20.('Tee shirt save' to 'super heavy' armoured vehicle.)
ALL armour is effective vs all weapons.
Just some armour desnt stop some weapons killing the occupant(s)!
(Mind you the sort of game that has this sort of straight forward rules , has far more gameplay than 40k, so you probably would not enjoy it.)
Happy gaming
Lanrak.

I'll agree that's an effective game system. It's just that what you're suggesting would force a total revamp of the entire game, which would get all sorts of people up in arms if GW were to do. This as it is, is a very simple change that functions well within the current ruleset and mostly as a house rule.

Hi themandudeperson.

I just wanted to point out one of the much simpler games mechanics that could have been used.(Rather than the awful AP system.)And if other more appropriate mechanics and methods were used the whole of 40k game play could be covered in 20 to 40 pages of rules.

My personal favorite for modifiers to AP is to group weapons into functions.
Small arms no modifiers.

Special anti infantry -1AS.
Heavy anti infantry -2AS.

Anti tank weapons vs M/Cs, special -1AS, Heavy -2AS.

TTFN
Lanrak,