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.

The thing with 3rd edition was that it was trying to simplify everything. The actual reason for this was because Fantasy, at the time, was seen as the more "Complex" game. That's why all units got standardized movement, rules became streamlined and generalized and everything became cookiecutter simple for 3rd edition. It was designed to be fast to pick up and quick to play. The AP system was built with this in mind: Is the armor save worse than my AP? If yes, no roll. If no, yes roll. This is also why power weapons, at the time, just straight up ignored armor. It was easier to just point at the shiny blade and say "no go" rather than fat finger through the book looking for particular stats like Fantasy Magic Weapons.

At the time this was acceptable, since if you wanted a more complex and tactical system, you go to Fantasy. 40k was meant to be quick and appeal to newcomers.

Fast forward to today. 7th edition, which like every edition since 4th, had just been tacking on complex rules into what was originally meant as a simple system. It's why the D-Strength never worked; it literally broke the system of strength for the game. The difference now is that Fantasy no longer existed; AoS is different from 40k, but just as simple/complex to pick up. Hence why we're seeing a return of these mechanics; there's no reason to keep 40k's core rules in the dumb ages anymore when the original Fantasy no longer existed.

I prefer modifiers myself, but i don't see anything fundamentally *wrong* with the old AP system. I remember reading at the time that they wanted to reflect how powerful marines were by encouraging them to not have to use cover.

The problem was the execution. They handed out ap weapons like candy, which got worse over time. If they had been a little more considered in their approach, the system would have had more value. The 'new' system has the same vulnerabilties - if they start handing out modifiers like candy again, then armour will again start becoming devalued.

General Hobbs wrote:


So basically what I am reading is that the problem with the old AP system is simply the number of weapons with low AP, not an actual game play system.

My point is there should be an easier, more intuitive way to gain the same result than to say, this weapon is AP -4! And then the player has to sit and think whether he gets a save or not. What made the old system work is you didn't have to pause in game play to think...you just played the game.

Then you weren't paying attention, Ronin_eX spelled it out very well, that the easy access to low AP weapons was a result of (and not cause of) the all or nothing nature of the AP system, where Marines would shrug off most things but other armies paying for their armour didn't even get it against bolters. This also lead to the massed high rate of fire weapons that dominated in 7th, because it let people keep their save but they had to make so many of them that even with a 2+ it was almost worthless. And this of course led to the abomination of re-rollable stacked layers of saves that made 7th so un fun.

And GW has always used a minus sign to demonstrate something getting worse and a plus to show it getting better, this is nothing new to 8th, if you find it so unintuitive how on earth did you ever get through a game previously?

 Torga_DW wrote:
I prefer modifiers myself, but i don't see anything fundamentally *wrong* with the old AP system. I remember reading at the time that they wanted to reflect how powerful marines were by encouraging them to not have to use cover.

The problem was the execution. They handed out ap weapons like candy, which got worse over time. If they had been a little more considered in their approach, the system would have had more value. The 'new' system has the same vulnerabilties - if they start handing out modifiers like candy again, then armour will again start becoming devalued.

Yeah, but now it will be devalued for everyone equally, instead of leaving 3+ as decent armour and putting everyone else in paper towel armour. Not great, but better.

 Elbows wrote:
This is going to sound insulting, but if applying an armour save modifier is too difficult...that's an issue with the player.

To be fair, I think he meant more the language "Why is it a minus when the number you need is higher." Hence his AP +4 example.

Not, "duur maths..."

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
This is going to sound insulting, but if applying an armour save modifier is too difficult...that's an issue with the player.

To be fair, I think he meant more the language "Why is it a minus when the number you need is higher." Hence his AP +4 example.

Not, "duur maths..."

Well, his follow up post is basically "duur maths"... I don't believe he is actually as bad as it as he claims though. Just needs to get used to it, and he'll be fine.

 Imateria wrote:
Ronin_eX spelled it out very well, that the easy access to low AP weapons was a result of (and not cause of) the all or nothing nature of the AP system,

Worked fine for years. Codex escalation was the issue, not AP.

 Imateria wrote:
where Marines would shrug off most things but other armies paying for their armour didn't even get it against bolters.

I'd also disagree with the "paying for their armor" as though it would be explicitly separate from the all-around-usefulness of the model.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Imateria wrote:
Ronin_eX spelled it out very well, that the easy access to low AP weapons was a result of (and not cause of) the all or nothing nature of the AP system,

Worked fine for years. Codex escalation was the issue, not AP..

It didn't work fine for Imperial Guard/Dark Eldar/Orks who had effectively no save ever from the start.
(There were a few minor exceptions-mainly any of them fighting IG, but virtually every basic firearm rendered their armour pointless)

Jbz` wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Imateria wrote:
Ronin_eX spelled it out very well, that the easy access to low AP weapons was a result of (and not cause of) the all or nothing nature of the AP system,

Worked fine for years. Codex escalation was the issue, not AP..

It didn't work fine for Imperial Guard/Dark Eldar/Orks who had effectively no save ever from the start.
(There were a few minor exceptions-mainly any of them fighting IG, but virtually every basic firearm rendered their armour pointless)

Didn't guard have Flak armor, which was a 6+ unless it was a blast weapon, and then it gave a 5+, in 2nd edition? Virtually unchanged for them and Orks vs. bolters. I call foul.

In fact I believe their armor got better vs. Orks and other Guard.

I've always played dark eldar and tyranids. Only cover mattered. I never understood why my units even had an armour save. There wasn't a gun in the game that did not negate it.

On my side I always found myself thinking anything AP 4 or worse was worthless.

And after I while I got completely fed up with layer upon layer of saves basically to compensate for the horrible AP system. At the end of 7th, it felt like every unit had FnP which was specifically worded to 'not be a save', which never made sense to me because you rolled to save your model, it was just done to creatr another layer of rolls.

General Hobbs wrote:


My point is there should be an easier, more intuitive way to gain the same result than to say, this weapon is AP -4! And then the player has to sit and think whether he gets a save or not. What made the old system work is you didn't have to pause in game play to think...you just played the game.

How is simple subtraction not intuitive? What exactly does a player have to think about? You roll to hit, you roll to wound, you tell your opponent AP -x, your opponent rolls and subtracts x from every die they roll and see if that new number is equal to or greater than their armour save. Where is the pause in thinking? We are talking about subtracting a number 0 to 4 from a number 1-6 and seeing if it is equal to, or greater than a number 2 to 6. The vast majority of 6 year old can do that with little to no pause.