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 thing 40K would be alot better if it did not have AP and use the way WHFB use to handle there armor thoughts?

No.

Yes, let's go back to 2nd Ed! <@. No, not really.

The way WHFB handles armour reduction wouldnt work for 40k, but it would be much better if each weapon reduced armour saves by an amount, rather than just negating them or not. It would make the game more interesting, but then non-vehicles would need to be re-pointed to take this into account.

if that was to happen, and i hope it never does, how could you feasibly allow for the different weapon types, using that system says a shuriken cannon=starcannon, their imperial equivalents being a HB and a Plasma gun

HI all.
Yes AP system is awful, its exponetial efficiency curve and non scalble results are truely slowed.

However asking for the ASM sytem back is just a knee jerk reaction , because thats all most players know about.

There are MUCH better systems available.

Most simulate the simple real world interaction of weapons and armour.

Weapons are designed to cause dammage.
Armour is designed to reduce /negate damage from weapons.

Deduct the armour value from the damage taken(strenght of hit - armour value.)

Or assign scores to supress target / to dammage target, to all weapons.
And simply add the armour value to these weapon values.(Simple modifiers and dice grouping get a miriad of weapon functions and effects.)

Yes the current rule set would have to be totaly re-written to include all the modern alternative game mechanics, that would reduce the pages of rules(nds by default the level of ambiguity) and increase the game play, for these sorts of systems to be used.

Half the pages of rules to remeber , and double the game play.
GW will NEVER do it...

If AP is like eating gravel, ASM is like eating gruel.
I want Pizza!

TTFN
Lanrak.

How the hell is AP complicated? You have a certain AP value on a weapon, you ignore armour of that value.

Cheese Elemental wrote:How the hell is AP complicated? You have a certain AP value on a weapon, you ignore armour of that value.

QFT

I second that, orkishlyorkish!

orkishlyorkish wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:How the hell is AP complicated? You have a certain AP value on a weapon, you ignore armour of that value.

QFT

Double QFT, the AP system takes up so little space in the rulebook that almost any system would be more complicated. It may be it's only real virtue, but give credit where credit is due.

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

The AP system is hopelessly simplistic and full of flaws.

An armour save modifier system is pointless when so many weapons would get an armour save mod, meaning that no one would ever get their normal save.

We've been using a mix of the two for half a decade or so now. Generally it boils down to this:

1. AP system works as written now.
2. Weapons that are S7 and above have the 'High Impact' rule, inflicting a -1 Save Mod (ie. Autocannon hits Marine, Marine takes a 4+ rather than a 3+save).
3. Heavy Close Combat Weapons also inflict a -1 Save (kind've like Choppas, but not written by a moron, so it affects all armour, not just Sv3+ and Sv2+).

Works quite well.

HI all.
No one is saying the AP system is complicated, just it does SO LITTLE ,with so many flaws.

As the save chance increases by 1/6 per level AND the number of weapons negating the save decreases at the same time ,the efficiency curve is steep.

No to mention the actual value of the AS is determined by opposing weaponry.

As well as the AP system you need to use;-
Invunerable saves (that are vunerable in some circumstances... )
(Cover saves,the less said about this the better IMO...)
And completly seperate rules for vehicles.
And special rules for several weapon types and effects.

So the AP rules and ALL the other rules to cover the rest of the 40k games weapon -armour interaction takes 17 pages of rules.

This is the problem with the 40k rules , the basic rules a very simple but hardly cover any of the game play.
So by the time you have added all the extra rules to cover tha game play you want ,you get a counter-intuitive clunky mess.

Most other systems cover ALL the game play with the basic rules .
Yes most of the rules are slightly more complex than roll a dice ,win/loose.

But you dont need 14 pages of rules to cover movement, and 17 pages of rules to cover weapon armour interaction.


TTFN
Lanrak.

well when you put it that way, armor interaction is a big part of the game, well worth 17 pages (ooh, 17 pages, it's like i'm reading a novel!), the AP system has nothing to do with vehicle armor interaction (save for AP1 and AP-), cover saves, special rules, or invulnerable saves. You're simply taking anything that has to do with armor system and labeling it a flaw in the AP system.

I think it's good that there's a difference in vulnerabilities; simply having one method of determining resilience makes it hard to have tactical depth.

However, I think more emphasis on cover/ability to hit an enemy would be serve that purpose better than the current emphasis on armor and toughness.

Hi all.
Canoness Rory.
If the armour weapon interaction was writen inclusivley (to include all unit interaction,) it could be achived with less rules and include more tactics!
Therfore a using a limited system that only covers a fraction of the game play is a false economy.

Orkeosurus .'I think it's good that there's a difference in vulnerabilities; simply having one method of determining resilience makes it hard to have tactical depth. '

BULL POOO!!!!!!!!!!!!

Classic Battletec quick start rules 13 pages.
Covers Mechs (small titans) , tanks, heavy assault suits (termies) and ordinary infantry.
About 10 times more tactics than 40k.

If you have only played 40k , how the heck do you know about any of the other game mechanics that could be used instead of AP?

Because 40k has so little in the way of tactics, GW make up for this by making the rules far too complicated.(Lots of rules to achive very little.)And focuses on differences to promote sales , rather than similariteis to improve rules efficiency and game play.

Lots of GW gamers belive lots of rules =better game .

Actualy better rules =better games .

And the AP system is flawed and limited, in comparison to alternative methods.
Fact.

TTFN
Lanrak.

Warhammer 40k also uses Toughness to determine resilience. A S4 AP4 Assault 1 weapon, for example, will be more likely to kill a W1 model with a Sv3+ than a S3 AP4 Assault 1 weapon.

Lanrak wrote:Orkeosurus .'I think it's good that there's a difference in vulnerabilities; simply having one method of determining resilience makes it hard to have tactical depth. '

BULL POOO!!!!!!!!!!!!

Classic Battletec quick start rules 13 pages.
Covers Mechs (small titans) , tanks, heavy assault suits (termies) and ordinary infantry.
About 10 times more tactics than 40k.

If you have only played 40k , how the heck do you know about any of the other game mechanics that could be used instead of AP?

Because 40k has so little in the way of tactics, GW make up for this by making the rules far too complicated.(Lots of rules to achive very little.)And focuses on differences to promote sales , rather than similariteis to improve rules efficiency and game play.

Lots of GW gamers belive lots of rules =better game .

Actualy better rules =better games .

And the AP system is flawed and limited, in comparison to alternative methods.
Fact.

So you didn't really read my post, then?

Orkeosaurus:

You don't have to quote his post in its entirety.

Yeah, I guess not.

Anyways, looking through the quick start rules for Battletech, there seem to be several different methods of determining resilience; there's avoiding line of sight, there's differing armor values for different parts of vehicles, there's increased hitting modifiers for cover and range, there's special rules for infantry that makes them more vulnerable to some attacks and less to others, and there's the hitting modifiers that fast units can force their enemies to take.

Agreed that AP feels a bit simplistic, however, everything using a simple D6 system does for me.

There are other ways to do things that don't necessarily complicate the rules yet add more tactical depth. It's what we call an elegant ruleset.

I think if you wan to change how AP worked you would first need to change a lot more things, which would essentially result in a rewriting of all the rules and codexes, something which at this point would be a herculean effort.

I'd personally like to see a restructured turn order.

Orkeosaurus:

Let's suppose that resiliency is what happens when one element of a game is successfully addressed by another element, so that, Battletech-wise, being out of line of sight, making it harder to be hit, and so on do not count towards resilience.

In Battletech resiliency basically comes down to damage vs armour/internal structure/bodies/etc. This means that loading a 'Mech down with lots of little guns/missiles to sand down the opposing armour, and maximize the likelihood of a critical hit is good. It also means lots of annoying book-keeping.

By comparison, in Heavy Gear resiliency is much more organic to how difficult it is to address the model, with the level of difficulty in part determining whether the unit's resiliency can be overcome. The weapon's Damage Multiplier is multiplied by the difference in the attack roll and the defense roll (if there is one), with the level of damage determined by comparing the product of this operation to the target's armour. If less, no damage, if more then light damage, if twice as much then heavy damage, if three times as much then overkill. Damage is handled by a similar set of charts to the 3rd/4th edition 40k Glancing and Penetrating damage tables, except that they're again organic to each other. You can take a modifier to hit, for example, to increase your chance of affecting a particular system on the target, use extra ammo to make the target easier to hit, increase the weapon's area of effect, and increase the amount of damage successful hits can cause. The downside is that the flexibility of the Silhouette system means that it can slow down play as players' crunch the optimal firing solutions (which are still pretty damned cool when they get pulled off).

I tried a hybrid Warhammer/Silhouette system once, where the result of the hit die was multiplied by the weapon's Strength value, and anything over the firer's BS was discarded. I added some additional rules so that fire could be concentrated (dice could be sacrificed for a +1 to the hit die of weapons of equal or lesser strength), or spread out (overkill shots could affect multiple models along the line of fire, etc). It was fun in skirmish games but tended to bog down thereafter.

A simple yet tactical model involving modifiers is Epic: Armageddon, particularly with its crossfire mechanic by which detachments under fire in a cross configuration (line of fire from an attacking enemy detachment also crossed another enemy detachment) meant an additional -1 on top of any modifiers inflicted by weapons. Of course, the Epic: Armageddon is different from the Warhammer 40k 5th edition game, involving different elements, but some parts have been shared (the wound/save distribution system, for example). My point being that such a simple addition really adds to the game in the tactical fashion of Heavy Gear without all the work.

What's all this blather in aid of? Well, as pointed out already the AP system has the virtue of parsimony: it's simple. Given that it has such a virtue, however we might quantify it in operations-per-player/turn/action, and presumably given that we don't want to dismantle large sections of the rest of the rules, the problem is to brainstorm mechanics of similar simplicity, that can be swapped in, and that preserve the relative balance of game elements.

One of the better suggestions I've heard is a hybrid-AP/AM system where the following condition is added to the usual conditions, and the second is somewhat modified.

Warhammer 40k 5th edition
1. If AP>Sv then Sv
2. If AP<=Sv then no Sv

Proposal
1. If AP>Sv+1 then Sv
2. If AP=Sv+1 then Sv-1
3. If AP<Sv+1 then no Sv

This is pretty simple, and has a nice symmetry to it, but it has the problem of unbalancing the game. Or, if you think the game is already unbalanced, it changes the unbalance in novel ways. It has the additional problem of re-introducing modifiers to a game system that has largely abandoned them (things like vehicle damage being notable exceptions).

My own proposal is one that uses the characteristic Warhammer 5th edition mechanic of re-rolls, such that:

1. If AP>Sv+1 then Sv
2. If AP=Sv+1 then re-roll successful Sv
3. If AP<Sv+1 then no Sv

I think this preserves the spirit of making AP>Sv a straight up saving throw, AP=Sv+1 significantly more effective than AP=Sv+2, and substitutes a selection process (a re-roll) for the calculation of a modifier.

So would that definition of resilience still include abilities that make it more difficult for a unit to be hit, if it did not make it more difficult to engage per se?

(For example, increased movement and the increased ability to take advantage of cover that comes with it wouldn't be resilience, but, say, the skirmishing ability modifying rolls to hit in Warhammer Fantasy would be?)


Your idea for armor modifiers is interesting. One unintended side effect may be a weakening of 4+ and 3+ armor saves, as AP5 and AP4 weapons are some of the most prevalent.

Orkeosaurus:

No, that definition of resilience would specifically exclude rules that make it more difficult for a unit to be hit because those rules are rules that govern how an element in the game is addressed. So cover in Warhammer 40k would not reflect a model's resilience because cover is not a property of that element of the game. Likewise cover in Battletech would not reflect a model's resilience for the same reason. But that's because these games involve a model of address limited to a series of binary decisions (in line of sight? in range? hit?).

Conversely, rules that make it more difficult to address an element in Heavy Gear are less clear cut because that system integrates the degree to which an element is addressed, with the element's degree of resilience (degree to which speed, range, line of sight, and skill influence success roll, rather than a separate series of operations). That's why I brought up Heavy Gear, because the basic concepts its built on are so different from those of more traditional games like Battletech and Warhammer.

All that aside, the effect of weakening Sv3+ to AP4 and Sv4+ to AP5 isn't really a side effect as integral to re-balancing the system as a whole rather than changing one part and having knock-on effects by co-relative changes in value of unaffected units.

In plainer English, by have models with a Sv3+ and Sv4+ affected in the same way as models with a Sv2+ means that you don't have to deal with the problem of models with those saves not only improving in proportion to Sv2+ models, but also AP2 and AP- weapons not improving in proportion to AP3, AP4 and AP5 weapons.

This is called third edition/warhammer fantasy.... I found the fantasy way armour and penetration works is slightly confusing and yet you call AP confusing....



EDIT- Oh and also it's one paragraph to explain the whole thing...

orkishlyorkish:

Please don't quote entire long posts. Just address whomever you're addressing and say what you have to say. If we want to know what content you're replying to, then we can find that poster's previous message.

Edit: Thank you.

I wonder how many factors in warhammer 40k affect the damage a model takes when it is successfully engaged?

I can think of:
Toughness
Armor Save
Inherent Cover Saves or Modifiers to Cover Saves
Invulnerable Saves
Feel no Pain
Weapon Skill
We'll Be Back
Miscellaneous Special Abilities
Leadership of the Model's Unit

One thing to remember in 40k is that units are the game elements so that units engage units in 40k, and models are simply elements of units.

Plus saving throws and skills are exclusively disjunct from each other, so:

1. Line of Sight
2. Range
3. BS/WS
4. Strength-Toughness
5. AP-Armour Save/Cover Save/Invulnerable Save
6. AP/Power/Instant Death-Feel No Pain/We'll Be Back
7. Instant Death-Wounds
8. Leadership (Morale Checks/Pinning Tests)

Ah yes, I forgot Instant Death and the immunity thereof.

Another important one, since it will often triple a model's survivability.

Or quadruple, depending on the number of wounds that the model has. I'd expect Eternal Warrior'll involve some sort super-Feel No Pain roll in the next edition. Right now it acts like a multiplier like Fearless in the last two editions: way out of balance. I figure it'll probably confer a save against Instant Death or somesuch.

A good rule for eternal warrior is to reduce the character to 1 wound, rather than killing him outright.