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.

One thing that is very annoying in 40k, is armor save. The reason is simple a big gun, that would quite simply blow people away (ex: Autocannon) is negated by a simple roll of dice as if armor where something active.

My thought on how to fix this is quite simple, give every model an armor value, like vehicles.

Ex a space marine has an armor of 10 (to represent the durability of his power armor).

However, because it is so powerful and not all weapons would be able to penentrate it, there are modifiers in the form of the AP system, which I think should be reversed. AP 1 would therefore be a horrible armor penetrations, while AP 5 would be awesome.

How do these two interact you ask simple:

Say a Space Marine has an armor of 10, and he is being shot by a regular Bolter. With A strength of 4, the bolter would penetrate only on a roll of 6, but it would have to roll to wound with a +1 modifier to wound, so a S4 weapon on a T4 Space Marine would normally roll to wound on a 4+, but because it glanced (to use the vehicle term) it would now roll to wound on a 5+.

However the Bolter being such a powerful weapon has an AP of 2, this means that the armor of the Space Marine would now be 8, instead of 10 and the bolter would only need a 4 to glance the armor and could wound with a 4+ as normal.

This would make the game a lot more deadlier and make some armies weapons much more effective, instead of simply being negated as they are, for there are no more to save rolls, as like in real life, the weapon just has to defeat the armor and then wound.

For weapons, like the Lasgun, that would never be able to bring down such armor under this rule, they would always glance the armor on a roll of 6 (only against units with Toughness) and always wound with a +1 modifier to to wound rolls.

What do you think, any comment would be appreciated

Sounds just too complex for larger games that need a relatively fast pace...then. The AP system now is simple, either they get the save or they don't.

That does sound like a much more realistic way to represent fictional battles between anthropomorphic green symbiotic fungi, absurdly heroic superhuman psychics, emo space elves, and demons.

neat idea but that would unnecessarily complicate things and slow the game down. The current system isnt realistic but as far as rules go, they are fair and they work.

I think the way it is is fine. However, in my opinion they should do two things:

-Reduce the amount of AP1, 2 and 3 weaponry. Either restrict the number you can take, disallow them in most units, greatly increase points cost or get rid of the AP on guns like lascannons designed for anti tank (though i realize MCs would get off easier). Im sorry, but theres something wrong when my chaos terminators are taking more 5+ invul saves than 2+ in a game. Marines also get blown to hell by everything, making their low numbers a disadvantage. Necrons are even worse, and are part of the reason they kinda suck right now. Other armies easily getting 4+ cover saves doesnt help either.

-Make cover have an effect on hits. How does it make sense that a heavily armoured superhuman behind a wall gets no benefit over a scrawny guardsman in cover? Stupid.

I realize theyd have to change other aspects of the game, but i find these two things extremely stupid and really lowers the strategy level.

It makes perfect sense for your terminators to be taking more 5++ than 2+, because anyone who knows how to play the game are going to save their high or no AP weapons for something else in your army, and use their plasma/melta/power weapons on your terminators; Its nothing more than using the correct tools for the correct job. I certainly wouldnt fire reaper launchers at your terminators and then use my fire dragons to cook your berzerkers, that would be using my weapons inefficiently.

That goes without saying. However, there is so much AP fire that its extremely easy for them to be taken out with AP shots from any squad. Im not saying its stupid that people do it, Im saying that its stupid that people are able to do it. Terminators are supposed to be beasts, yet they get blown to hell just as easily as marines. This is why you dont see CSM terminators (other than suicide ones), because you can get two regular marines for the price of one terminator.

How would making heavily armored troops always get to use their armor save make for better strategy than having them vulnerable to the weapons made to kill them?

I agree that cover should stack with armor.

Can you try to explain this in laemin's terms?

Orkeosaurus wrote:Yeah, how would making heavily armored troops always get to use their armor save make for better strategy than having them vulnerable to the weapons made to kill them?

I agree that cover should stack with armor.

It would add strategy because then you would actually have to divert resources to taking them out. In my CSM list, every squad I have has terminator armour piercing weapons (except for zerkers, but they hold their own anyways). Ontop of that, theyre just as good at taking out regular infantry and tanks as well.

I realize thats not the case for every army, although generally those armies are swarm armies which TEQs arnt the best against anyways. But why do you think you never see CSM terminator squads? How about the ork equivalent Meganobz?

The fact is, youre paying 2x more for a unit that is going to die just as easily.

EDIT: Note that Im saying there should be less AP fire, not completely removing it.

I see lots of terminators. I see lots of nobs with Feel no Pain, who have that ability denied by AP2 as well, and are furthermore vulnerable to Instant Death. I also see lots of Plague Marines. Considering that terminators aren't scoring, I think they're used quite readily.

I'm guessing you're talking about ten chaos marines with two meltaguns? That's two shots, and they take the place of flamers. Getting four terminators under a flamer template is pretty much as good as firing one meltagun at them. Plasma guns do better, but they're made to kill terminators, so complaining about that would be silly.

You say it would strategy; for whom? The player with the terminators can now force the other player to bend over backwards to try and deal with his squad, because there are so few AP2 weapons.

The fact is you're paying twice as much for models that can deep strike, are twice as resilient against AP4 and worse weapons, far more resilient against AP3, slightly less than twice as resilient against AP2 weapons, and are only equal in resilience against AP2 weapons when both squads are in cover. They also have power weapons standard, but less attacks. They have different weapon options, and they're not scoring.

If you're unhappy that people use their weapons against what they were meant to kill when you could have taken something that's not vulnerable to those weapons, just build a list with five Land Raiders and be immune to 9/10 of the game. It's not a problem of armor saves, it's a problem of spamming one thing being more effective than balanced lists.

Except youre not getting the point of my post at all. I dont care if there are things that can kill them. Its the fact that everything can kill them, including a squad of 10 CSMs. It doesnt matter that theyre resilient to Ap3/4+ weapons because there are far too many units with the ability to kill them. 2 meltas are going to kill atleast 1 just by themselves. Thats ~40 points right there for a pretty cheap terminator. They are not scary at all and take no thought to take out provided you didnt take a silly list. The melta guns designed for tanks take out termies just as well. Theres no trade off.

And no, in competitive lists, you never see CSM terminators (other than suicide) despite their cheap cost for Deepstrike (aka 1 round of getting hit by insane template weapons and other Ap2- fire), power weapons, 5+ invul and 2+ save.

Ive never even seen a meganob, aside from a few my buddy has that he never uses.

Night Lords wrote:Except youre not getting the point of my post at all. I dont care if there are things that can kill them. Its the fact that everything can kill them, including a squad of 10 CSMs. It doesnt matter that theyre resilient to Ap3/4+ weapons because there are far too many units with the ability to kill them. 2 meltas are going to kill atleast 1 just by themselves. Thats ~40 points right there for a pretty cheap terminator. They are not scary at all and take no thought to take out provided you didnt take a silly list. The melta guns designed for tanks take out termies just as well. Theres no trade off.

Your problem is flamers are just as good against them.

Five terminators under a flame template will be slightly more damaging than a meltagun shot, four will be slightly less. That's not counting the fact that flamers are cheaper, or that they ignore cover, or that meltaguns have a slightly longer range. Flamers are designed to kill terminators as much as meltaguns are, and they do about as well. Considering that 40 point terminator (and second one with the bolters) was just killed by a base 170 point unit that had a chance to fire on them at close range, that's not too surprising. (Of course, chaos terminators are only 30 points base.)

And no, in competitive lists, you never see CSM terminators (other than suicide) despite their cheap cost for Deepstrike (aka 1 round of getting hit by insane template weapons and other Ap2- fire), power weapons, 5+ invul and 2+ save.

And you do see Plague Marines. Lots of them. You also see Obliterators, another 2+ save unit.

In Space Marine lists you see Assault Terminators a lot.

Most units in the game don't end up in "competitive lists" at any rate. That hardly means the rest of the game needs an overhaul to make it better.

Ive never even seen a meganob, aside from a few my buddy has that he never uses.

That's because they're a completely different type of unit from nearly anything else in the ork army. And they're overshadowed by regular Nobs who have a lot more options available to them (including Feel no Pain).

Mega Nobs do quite admirably when they're used in overwhelming numbers, alongside things like Battlewagons and Killa Kans. Having one unit in your army that's vulnerable to lascannons is obviously going to end up with that unit getting pasted. Terminators have the same problem a lot of the time, but so does everything else in the game when they're the only unit with a certain type of resilience.

I fail to see how 23 point plague marines with T5, defensive nades, 2 special weapons at any number, etc. or 20 point nobs with their insane close combat skills wouldnt be worth it regardless. FNP is an extra thing to protect them, but they dont suddenly get thrown out the door. Terminators are just regular marines at x2 the price with deepstriking and slightly heavier weapons (most commonly 1 time use combi weapons) with 2+ save. The reason you dont see terminators are because you get 10 wounds for the same cost as 5, and they can do considerable damage as a basic unit anyways (while scoring).

Obliterators are used for their firepower and versatility, not their 2+ save. Anytime someone goes after them (the hard part is getting in range, which is not a problem with termies), they die.

The reason a 3 man combi-melta squad of terminators are called "termicide" is because they get owned on your opponents next turn. Why? Because everything can kill them, which is why you only bring 3 of them (the minimum).

Youre not going to convince me otherwise. Youre speaking in context of the current game, but Im suggesting a completely different one (hence proposed rules) where AT is AT, and Anti infantry is anti infantry. Meltas should not be able to completely own tanks and terminators at the same time. I should have to pick to either buy plasma to take out termies or meltas to take out tanks. They should also be really expensive to make each model extremely important, so you cant spam these versatile guns.

Think about it, if I decided to buy a melta gun that wasnt AP3-, Id be losing a bolter shot to be able to take on tanks. Im consciously making the decision to lose some anti infantry in order to be able to take down a tank.

I have 8 melta guns in my list, on top of daemon prince (PW), obliterators, zerkers, etc which all are beasts in taking armoured units down. When you play against me i have a list that can take on infantry lists, mech lists, or heavily armoured elite troops, all in one. Because of the versatility of the guns, I dont have to make any decisions. The only think I ever swap is one squad of CSMs to have flamers against orks. Thats it.

This would make the game a lot more deadlier

more deadlier

Night Lords wrote:I fail to see how 23 point plague marines with T5, defensive nades, 2 special weapons at any number, etc. or 20 point nobs with their insane close combat skills wouldnt be worth it regardless. FNP is an extra thing to protect them, but they dont suddenly get thrown out the door. Terminators are just regular marines at x2 the price with deepstriking and slightly heavier weapons (most commonly 1 time use combi weapons) with 2+ save. The reason you dont see terminators are because you get 10 wounds for the same cost as 5, and they can do considerable damage as a basic unit anyways (while scoring).

Obliterators are used for their firepower and versatility, not their 2+ save. Anytime someone goes after them (the hard part is getting in range, which is not a problem with termies), they die.

So what your saying is... there a lot of units that are good and have a 2+ save or the equivalent thereof.

However, because one unit with a 2+ save isn't good enough, there need to be less AP2 weapons in the game. Hmm, not buying it.

Of course obliterators aren't going to live in close range if they're up against anything near their points value, they're long range fire support. That doesn't change the fact that krak missiles and battlecannons bounce of them, and would annihilate the squad if they had a 3+ save. You're also saying that nobs and plague marines are simply a better deal; too bad that's not possible if units that rely on the enemy not having AP2 weapons universally suck. The truth of the matter is that 2+ saves are good, and if you think terminators pay too much for it, that's a problem with the terminators, not with the rest of the game.

The reason a 3 man combi-melta squad of terminators are called "termicide" is because they get owned on your opponents next turn. Why? Because everything can kill them, which is why you only bring 3 of them (the minimum).

What's that? Deepstriking a 105 point unit into the middle of someone's army will end with that unit dead?

What a surprise.

Youre not going to convince me otherwise. Youre speaking in context of the current game, but Im suggesting a completely different one (hence proposed rules) where AT is AT, and Anti infantry is anti infantry. Meltas should not be able to completely own tanks and terminators at the same time. I should have to pick to either buy plasma to take out termies or meltas to take out tanks. They should also be really expensive to make each model extremely important, so you cant spam these versatile guns.

And you once again ignore the flamer, which is JUST AS GOOD AGAINST TERMINATORS.

The weapon designed to kill hordes is as good against terminators as the weapon designed to kill meltaguns; why are you complaining about the meltaguns?

In fact, your proposal only makes your problem worse. If AP2 weapons weren't easily available, terminators would be killed by weak anti-infantry weapons. It's already happened with Storm Shield terminators, who artificially resistant to AP2. Not only is it the same issue with regards to units being killed by weapons not designed to kill them, it's stupidly unrealistic for people in armor made to work in nuclear reactors to be killed by flamethrowers.

Think about it, if I decided to buy a melta gun that wasnt AP3-, Id be losing a bolter shot to be able to take on tanks. Im consciously making the decision to lose some anti infantry in order to be able to take down a tank.

Bolters suck.

What you don't lose is a bolter, what you lose is a flamer, which is quite a bit better against infantry.

I have 8 melta guns in my list, on top of daemon prince (PW), obliterators, zerkers, etc which all are beasts in taking armoured units down. When you play against me i have a list that can take on infantry lists, mech lists, or heavily armoured elite troops, all in one. Because of the versatility of the guns, I dont have to make any decisions. The only think I ever swap is one squad of CSMs to have flamers against orks. Thats it.

Plasma guns being as overpriced as they are limits their usefulness, and the nerf most anti-tank weapons received makes AP1 meltaguns a must have. Meltaguns also cause Instant Death in most units.

That's why they're taken, being AP1 against infantry is just icing, as it's no better than the number of wounds flamers cause. Berzerkers kill heavily armored units through weight of attacks as well, so I don't see why AP2/1/power weapons are the problem.

Night Lords wrote:
Youre not going to convince me otherwise. Youre speaking in context of the current game, but Im suggesting a completely different one (hence proposed rules) where AT is AT, and Anti infantry is anti infantry. Meltas should not be able to completely own tanks and terminators at the same time.

Becaue a weapon that can cut through the thicket tank armour should bounce off a termie's plate. Ok.

I should have to pick to either buy plasma to take out termies or meltas to take out tanks. They should also be really expensive to make each model extremely important, so you cant spam these versatile guns.

As an Ork player, should I BAWWWW about the proliferation of cover-save ignoring weapons like flamers? I can tell you right now, a rapid firing plasma rifle might kill two marines/termies, while a well-placed flamer (like, right after a close combat) or a large, cover-save ignoring template can easily wipe 10 orks. Let's make all special weapons rarer so violent, futuristic combat is fought with muskets!

Think about it, if I decided to buy a melta gun that wasnt AP3-, Id be losing a bolter shot to be able to take on tanks. Im consciously making the decision to lose some anti infantry in order to be able to take down a tank.

It's already a weapon with a single shot at 12". That is already a disadvantage.

I have 8 melta guns in my list, on top of daemon prince (PW), obliterators, zerkers, etc which all are beasts in taking armoured units down. When you play against me i have a list that can take on infantry lists, mech lists, or heavily armoured elite troops, all in one. Because of the versatility of the guns, I dont have to make any decisions. The only think I ever swap is one squad of CSMs to have flamers against orks. Thats it.

Good. I also have way of dealing with a variety of threats. Let's see how you'd handle my list if suddenly all your tank-popping/ anti-horde was severely limited.

Imho, I do think its rediculous that marine's don't get a stackable cover-save, but limiting special weapons isn't the way to do it. All that would mean is that it take-all-comer lists will stuggle more against the variety of power builds that are out there- can you're marines take on Horde Orks, Lash Chaos, and Mechdar when it has to severely limit its killing potential by reducing the number of special weapons it can have?

Holy crap, I absolutely hate broken quoting posts. Please post your stuff in a normal paragraph. You can bring up your points without making my eyes bleed. Unfortunately this post is going to have a similar format now in order to reply...
--------------

Mek:

-An AT weapon is designed to hit a big target, not a tiny individual. Do you see the military equipping every soldier with anti tank guns? No. Individual soldiers should not be easily killed by AT fire.

-If more than 4 or 5 orks got hit by flamer, youre not playing right. If you assault a tank and leave your guys bunched up, that was the chance you took.

-Your list would be just as hindered, and then *gasp* Id have to use my few special guns accordingly against your big guys!

-I am by no means saying the game is going to simply be the same except they get less weapons. Its a complete overhaul. There would be restrictions across the board with weaponry. But as of right now, what does it matter against IG when they sit back and have how many template weapons instant killing my guys? They get 4+ saves and I get, if im lucky, 4+ saves as well. The game then just turns into "send everything into CC" and leaves little strategy.

--------------
Ork:

-So what if theres lots of 2+ equivalents? I never said plagues dont die just as easy. I said atleast they cost less so its not as big of an investment. Oblits get IKd by battlecannons. You hit all 3, theres a 50% chance you just took out 75 points.

-Terminators ONLY get used for termicide because theyre useless otherwise. It doesnt matter what you put them next to, odds are they have Ap2 weaponry.

-The flamer is only 8 inches, 5 of which are useful. Then you have to be right next to each other to actually be affected. Whats youre point again?

-How does having only an extra bolter (minus the APing melta/plasma/etc.) over what you already had make it worse? Thats stupid.

-Flamers are good when enemies are 3-8 inches away, bolters can shoot 24 inches. Flamers are not great against anything other than hordes.

Night Lords wrote:Holy crap, I absolutely hate broken quoting posts. Please post your stuff in a normal paragraph. You can bring up your points without making my eyes bleed. Unfortunately this post is going to have a similar format now in order to reply...

Protip: that's because broken quoting posts are the best way to reply to multiple points.

-So what if theres lots of 2+ equivalents? I never said plagues dont die just as easy. I said atleast they cost less so its not as big of an investment. Oblits get IKd by battlecannons. You hit all 3, theres a 50% chance you just took out 75 points.

Let me use my brilliant problem solving skills to fix your problem: terminators should cost less. Oh lord! That fixes the problem of terminators and doesn't effect the other, useful units that have a 2+ save or equivalent. Who would have guessed the best way to fix a single unit would be to change that unit, and not the rest of the game!

Also a losing 38 points and losing 225 points is one hell of a difference.

-Terminators ONLY get used for termicide because theyre useless otherwise. It doesnt matter what you put them next to, odds are they have Ap2 weaponry.

Or flamers, or frag missiles, or a lot of orks, or any of the other million things that can kill terminators without needing to be AP2.

-The flamer is only 8 inches, 5 of which are useful. Then you have to be right next to each other to actually be affected. Whats youre point again?

The meltagun gets worse when the unit being shot at is in cover or has a higher invulnerable save, can be re-stacked with other high AP weapons, and is twice as expensive.

Also, "right next to each other to actually be affected"? Have you ever actually used flamers?

-How does having only an extra bolter (minus the APing melta/plasma/etc.) over what you already had make it worse? Thats stupid.

Learn to read. I didn't say having a bolter is worse, I'm said it's never going to make much of a difference regardless.

When you take a special weapon, you lose access to the other special weapon options. That, in addition to the point cost, is where the tradeoff is made, the bolter doesn't matter. Because it sucks.

-Flamers are good when enemies are 3-8 inches away, bolters can shoot 24 inches. Flamers are not great against anything other than hordes.

Bolters suck when shooting 24 inches. They suck slightly less when rapid firing.

Flamers are as good as meltaguns are against heavy infantry. It's true that they're not great against terminators but you know what? Meltaguns aren't either. They don't do any more damage than the flamers. If terminators are too expensive to take the hits that's a problem with their pricing, because having a ten-man squad of marines kill two terminators (one from the bolters, one from either the flamers or the meltaguns) when they get a chance to rapid fire isn't the end of the world.

Protip: Its annoying as gak, and the rest of your post is starting to get personal as well. Dont be a dick because I have a different opinion than you. Your entire posts have been arguing against my opinion as facts.

Protip #2: Saying protip makes you look like a giant tool.

You also clearly have no idea what Im talking about. I dont care if they cost less, they should be difficult to kill. All the Ap weapons make every unit a flake. Its simply point and shoot instead of tactics and positioning.


Do you not know how flamers work on a small elite unit? You really think Im going to put them side by side? You will never hit 10 guys unless your opponent has no idea how to play and put every guy in base to base in a flamer template formation. Period. EVEN if you were right, atleast with the flamethrower I have to be dumb enough to position myself right next to you. You can move and charge without getting hit by a flamer easily.

So to sum it up, you have no idea what Im talking about, and youre breaking the argument into something its not about (non AP weapons). With those weapons you get a 2+ save, and if Im dumb enough to get hit by a template, i deserve to roll 5 dice. However, there is no stopping meltaguns, and they make "elite" units no different from anything else. AP weapons are easy kills and completely negate the point of beastly units. TEQs should be feared when theyre on the field like theyre supposed to be, not just "Oh look, terminators, easy kill point". I should be able to deepstrike them in somewhere where your AP fire is weak and actually make them elite troops, and you would have to adjust your tactics to take them out. This is not possible when every unit has meltas and PF equivalents.

Well top of the list of mine is the P90

Night Lords wrote:Protip: Its annoying as gak, and the rest of your post is starting to get personal as well. Dont be a dick because I have a different opinion than you. Your entire posts have been arguing against my opinion as facts.

Protip #2: Saying protip makes you look like a giant tool.

Sorry if I've been getting personal, I didn't mean to, but we're talking about a game of probability, so the opinion that meltaguns devastate terminators is disprovable.

Also, I'm trying to respond to individual points with other points. If you would rather have me use quotation marks or italics I would, but I'm not going to try and paraphrase everything you say before responding.

You also clearly have no idea what Im talking about. I dont care if they cost less, they should be difficult to kill. All the Ap weapons make every unit a flake. Its simply point and shoot instead of tactics and positioning.

How would tactics and positioning help to destroy them if there weren't AP2 weapons? It would make even less of a difference, because now cover saves don't matter, and you can have ranks of guys shooting through each other without penalty.

Do you not know how flamers work on a small elite unit? You really think Im going to put them side by side? You will never hit 10 guys unless your opponent has no idea how to play and put every guy in base to base in a flamer template formation. Period. EVEN if you were right, atleast with the flamethrower I have to be dumb enough to position myself right next to you. You can move and charge without getting hit by a flamer easily.

Ten guys no, five is fairly likely. Unless you're seriously going to try and dance your terminators around out of fear of flamers, which makes very little sense if there's anything else on the board. I'm not saying a flamer will own terminators, it's just not any worse than a meltagun, or four bolters.

A meltagun averages less than half a terminator killed. 10/27 of a terminator, to be exact, closer to a third. 2/3 hit, 5/6 wound, 2/3 get past invulnerable save.

A flamer kills 1/12 for each terminator under. Four under makes it comparable to the meltagun.

A bolter kills 1/9 when rapid firing, so it's actually more like 3 bolters for a meltagun.

So to sum it up, you have no idea what Im talking about, and youre breaking the argument into something its not about (non AP weapons). With those weapons you get a 2+ save, and if Im dumb enough to get hit by a template, i deserve to roll 5 dice. However, there is no stopping meltaguns, and they make "elite" units no different from anything else. AP weapons are easy kills and completely negate the point of beastly units. TEQs should be feared when theyre on the field like theyre supposed to be, not just "Oh look, terminators, easy kill point". I should be able to deepstrike them in somewhere where your AP fire is weak and actually make them elite troops, and you would have to adjust your tactics to take them out. This is not possible when every unit has meltas and PF equivalents.

Oh please, are you seriously trying to say that we can't talk about the weapons that aren't AP2 in the discussion on AP2 weapons being overpowered? They can't possibly be overpowered without regards to their relation with comparable weapons.

It seems that a lot of your "people should have to use tactics" is actually "other people should have to use tactics to counter my units that can appear anywhere on the table and are resistant to nearly all of the game's weapons". Where's the tactics for the person with the terminators? Why doesn't the player with the terminators "use tactics" to avoid being within range of fifteen meltaguns on the turn they deepstrike?

Here's some more math:

5 Chaos Terminators, 1 Powerfist, 2 Combi-Meltas, 1 Icon of Chaos Glory = 180 points.

10 Chaos Space Marines, 2 Meltaguns, 1 Icon of Chaos Glory = 180 points.

Terminators deepstrike within 12" of the chaos marines. Neither squad has allies, nor are they in cover. They fire their combi-bolters and combi-plasmas.

A combi-bolter has a 4/27 chance of killing a chaos marine per shot, and the squad gets a total of six shots, which leads to about one chaos marine dead (24/27). A melta shot has a 10/18 chance of killing a chaos marine, and the squad gets 2 shots. That kills a second marine (20/18). That ends with 2 chaos marines killed.

The chaos marines fire back next turn. The two melta guns have a 10/27 chance of killing a terminator, so that's a little over two-thirds of a terminator dead. Now, at this stage, they can either fire bolt pistols and charge or fire bolters. Either way, a bolt shot has a 1/18 chance of killing a terminator.

If they fire bolt pistols, they average close to half of terminator (8/18). That leaves 7/6 dead terminators (about one).

If they fire bolters, they average close to a full dead terminator. That leaves 10/6 dead terminators (about two). Terminators take a morale check, pass easily (MoCG).

For the purposes of these calculations, we'll ignore wound allocation (which could destroy the powerfist, but also reduce wounds).

Now, the bolt pistol firers charge. They strike at the same initiative as the terminators, and they get 26 attacks. 13 hit, 6 wound, 1 failled save and they average one kill.

Three terminators with power weapons strike back; they get 2 attacks each, 6 total. 3 hit, 1.5 wounds, 1.5 chaos marines die.
The powerfist averages a little less than 1 wound with its 2 attacks; let's count that as a total of two kills for the terminators. Chaos marines take a morale check, probably pass (MoCG).

Next round of combat: Chaos marines down to 6 left, get 12 attacks. 6 hit, 3 wound, .5 failed save, terminators take half of a wound.

2 power weapon terminators strike back, 1 dead marine.
Powerfist kills 1 more. Chaos marines probably pass their morale check.

Let's count that as a dead terminator, but the next one gets rounded down.

4 chaos marines left, 8 attacks, 4 wound, terminators take a third of a wound. This one's discounted.
2 power weapon attacks, one hits, one half of a wound done. We'll round it down, and round it up next time.
2 power fist attacks, one dead chaos marine. Chaos marines probably pass their morale check.

Next round, 3 chaos marines left, 6 attacks, 3 hit, 1.5 wound, terminators take one sixth of a wound. Not enough for a death.
Same attacks as last time, this time the half a wound is rounded in favor of the terminators. 2 chaos marines dead. With MoCG the last marine will probably stick.

Next round, chaos marine dies. One or two terminators remain. Not bad, overall. It would have been better for the terminators to use combi-plasma.

(If the marines just rapid fire their bolters and don't assault, the termies do slightly better.)


For what it's worth, I'd also like to see terminators become more of a threat. What I disagree with is the notion that high AP weapons are the problem with this: the problem isn't that meltaguns can slag terminators (that's perfectly sensible), it's that lasguns, choppas, and flamethrowers can take them down without a terrible amount of effort (twice what they use against space marines, which cost half as much). They should gain something to make them more resilient to those attacks; something like the +1T modifier that bikes get. Wearing a tank around you should make you tougher than riding a motorcycle (not that I'd want to take away one of the few things space marine bikers get...).

OP: I think you have an interesting idea here, one that's actually been discussed before for necrons in particular (Kid Kyoto posted something like this not more than two weeks ago) but that conceivably work for any army. It's definitely game changing, possibly enough to stand alone as it's own system if you take it far enough.

Despite previous posters, I think it would streamline combat some, but only if it is combined with toughness to make it your roll to wound as well. You could start with Toughness as a base "armor value" and add the model's armor bonus to it. This would work for invls saves too.

If you take this route, you might want to address cover saves as well. Night Lords has a valid point and many game systems allow cover to affect to-hit rolls. This could be a kind of reverse AP, where your WS is compared to the cover value (probably an inverse of the current values) and if it's not high enough then your marksmanship isn't able to effectively hit units protected.

I do have a question though. If you penetrate, you wound; what happens when you glance? Does it just affect the roll to wound?

Night Lords wrote:-Make cover have an effect on hits. How does it make sense that a heavily armoured superhuman behind a wall gets no benefit over a scrawny guardsman in cover? Stupid.

I think cover saves also reflect how easy it is to hit something as well as how much their armour protects them. A guardsmen hiding behind a hedge will benefit almost as much (or indeed more) from the hedge hiding them than the protection of their armour. Hence they get an increased cover save.

Whilst a space marine mooching about in a bush will benefit just as much from the obscuring effect of the cover, they are still wearing armour that most guardsmen could not ever dream of having outside being a tank crewman, meaning that no matter how much cover they are hiding behind, their armour is still better than being harder to see.

I agree with remarks to the effect that cover should allow the re-rolling of hits etc...

Or we could have something simmilar to the cover rules in D&D (and an appropriate d20 dice system while we ar eat it ) to represent cover more accurately.

I like the idea very much, AP is something that has always slightly bothered me for the same reasons as you,

but as others have said it would be too long winded to be worth it.

nice idea though.

Gavin Thorne wrote:OP: I think you have an interesting idea here, one that's actually been discussed before for necrons in particular (Kid Kyoto posted something like this not more than two weeks ago) but that conceivably work for any army. It's definitely game changing, possibly enough to stand alone as it's own system if you take it far enough.

Despite previous posters, I think it would streamline combat some, but only if it is combined with toughness to make it your roll to wound as well. You could start with Toughness as a base "armor value" and add the model's armor bonus to it. This would work for invls saves too.

If you take this route, you might want to address cover saves as well. Night Lords has a valid point and many game systems allow cover to affect to-hit rolls. This could be a kind of reverse AP, where your WS is compared to the cover value (probably an inverse of the current values) and if it's not high enough then your marksmanship isn't able to effectively hit units protected.

I do have a question though. If you penetrate, you wound; what happens when you glance? Does it just affect the roll to wound?

My idea, is to make it so that there is no denial of saves, from a roll (it makes some armies rather hard to destroy an some units rather too powerful, best example space marines, even in small numbers, they can still defend from most anything reasonably well and they are too generally powerful)

As for glancing, it would impose a +1 on the to wound roll, as I described. In the current toughness vs strength system (which is perfectly fine by me by the way) strength equal to toughness rolls to wound on a 4+, under the rules I described a roll to glance imposes a +1 penalty on the to wound roll, so a 4+ becomes a 5+, to represent the weapon strength being diminished by the armor.

This idea occurred to me, to deny the armor save as an active defense (which armor isnt) and make it passive as it is in the real world. Invulnerable saves can keep the save, for they are indeed active systems (a shield activate as it senses the round incoming) and the fail represents the shield loosing power and the model being hit.

On this note I thought that invulnerable saves should be taken against to hit rolls (as opposed to wound rolls) why, it represents the shields, magical barriers and what nots activating before the armor takes damage, afterwards all hits roll against the armor, much as you see in a first person shooter (like halo) where the shield works first, and once it fails the armor is the one that takes the damage.

However AP has no assistance against a shield (unless it would be otherwise specified)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

somecallmeJack wrote:I like the idea very much, AP is something that has always slightly bothered me for the same reasons as you,

but as others have said it would be too long winded to be worth it.

nice idea though.

I don't think it takes that much space, and it makes the game be more strategic and tactical at the same time, because now you and your enemies have to take into account what weapons can or cannot take on my guys armor effectively.

Plus I described it pretty well in less than 3 paragraphs, granted the system that is in place now is relatively smaller than that but it is also flawed by its simplicity

I see now that I missed that explanation in your original post, thanks for clarifying that. I agree that it is well described and easily understood, but many 40K players dislike changing the current system because it's what they "grew up" with.

I wonder if you could combine the Toughness/Strength roll into the armor penetration roll, perhaps use Toughness as the base score for penetration and apply armor as a bonus to it? This would eliminate a roll from the process while still allowing both T and Asave to be applied. A penetration would be a wound, obviously. The idea here is that anything powerful enough to penetrate the armor is likely to shred whatever's inside it. For glances, have them wound on a 4+, possibly modified by "AP". You could also have glances count as wounds for break tests...

Have you playtested your idea yet?

Hi all.
If you want a rule set that gives simple intuitive simultion of tactical warfare , dont look at 40k!

Classic Battletech starter rule set covers all unit interaction and far more tactics,( area denial , misdirection, combined arms etc), in less pages (13)than 40k does explaining the multiple weapon- armour interactions(14)!

What you want is the most apropriate game mechanics that cover ALL unit types.
This means looking at unit similarities, (rather than finding diferences to exploit in marketing.)

But first find the closest real world analog the the GAMEPLAY you want , and pick the game mechanics that deliver this in the simplest most comprehensive way.

Currently 40k uses modern type units with ancient rules of engagment , which delivers a quasi WWI type game play.

I think 40k units suit a more WWII type game play.
In than massed range weapons cause more supression than physical damage , and close assaults are needed to finish off enemy units.
This makes shooting and close combat equalty important , without ignoring psychology.

Anyhow if ALL units are given an armour /resiliance value from 1 to a number that is suitable,( 10 perhaps 20?)

The lightest armoured least resilliant model gets AR1.
And the more armour resiliance to damage the model has the higher the AR value.

This can be used to modify weapon damage directly!
No seperate modifiers the AR value IS the modifer!

Either subtract from the damage value of the weapons (Str) before rolling to wound.(Obviuosly str values etc need to be re done.)
OR,
If we give weapons a value to supress/to damage.(wound).
Eg 3+/5+
An unarmed target is supressed on the roll of 3 or more, and a casualty/damage point caused on the roll of 5 or more.
Then the AR value is simply added to this value to make the target harder to supress -damage(wound.)

If we say the skill of the user denotes he number of dice rolled.
Eg BS 3 roll 3 dice, BS 4 roll 4 dice etc.

Then we can alter weapon effects by giving differnt methods of reading the rolled dice .
EG .Pick highest single roll, add the highest X number of dice , add the highest and lowest result , etc.

We could give units stealth skill, the number of dice rolled when trying to hide in/behind cover.
Cover could be given a concealment score.

EG a unit with a stealth skill of 4 is hiding behind a wall Concealment value 3+.
The unit rolls 4 dice , and any rolls of 3 or more negate a sucesfull attack dice roll perhaps?

Any how , all leave it there for now.
What other systems do you folks prefer?

TTFN
Lanrak.

ive read like 3 threads already form this catagory, and it sounds to me like someone doesnt like one smal detail about their teama dn wants to get it changed up