Switch Theme:

The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
The Marine Standing Behind Marneus Calgar





Upstate, New York

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
In a less skewed reality of the system, Missile Launchers probably were worth their points on paper, precisely because they did provide a bit of everything. By no means the most efficient Anti-Tank or Anti-Personnel heavy weapon, sure. But still fairly capable in both roles, bringing the appeal of being unlikely to run out of worthwhile targets.

Certainly I found them of particular use against Nids, as outside of Extended Carapace, the Krak Missile’s AP3 was plenty for swatting big bugs, and the relatively lack of AP on a Frag Missile was less of an issue against Gaunts.


Across every edition, whenever I saw a situation where a frag seemed like it should have been the right call, it ended up not being. With one exception, I think in 4-5th where my TML landspeeder dropped a pair of frags into a gaunt squad caught in the open and did ugly things to them. Every other time I was just tossing krack missiles downrange, or should have been. And if you are shooting kracks all the time, why not just pony up for the LC? MLs were being charged for a flexibility that I never used. Which sums up a lot about marines, honestly.

On pricing, I liked it in 5th? Where they were a free upgrade in tac squads, if you took a full 10 man squad. The rules of the game meant it wasn’t going to get the same use as in a dedicated Dev squad, so they cut you a break.

   
Made in fi
Posts with Authority






And now, in 10th, the humble missile launcher is hot garbage against any serious vehicle. Whereas a Primaris Lieutenant is a great choice for wounding vehicles in melee

"The larger point though, is that as players, we have more control over what the game looks and feels like than most of us are willing to use in order to solve our own problems" 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





In 5th-9th, I always found Aeldari missile launchers to be a pretty valid choice. They were generally a little less effective against vehicles than a lance, but not so much though that they were "bad" at the job. And when you happened to run into a carpet of gaunts or a 9th edition blob of gargoyles, you were glad for the extra horde clearing power. The key difference between the AML and the human ML generally being like, a pip of AP or something. You generally wanted to bring *some* lances or fire dragons in your army, but you could equip a few warwalkers with the AML and look at it as a genuinely decent option.

In 10th, I feel like missile launchers would be pretty viable if you just bumped the high strength profile up to S12. Compared to a lascannon/brightlance, missiles should probably be worse at wounding OR worse at doing damage; not both. Heck, you could even match the Strength AND Damage and the las/lance weapons would still have the edge in terms of AP.

They just went overboard in making krak missiles inferior in too many ways all at once. The frag/plasma profile is a nice to have but still pretty low value even when there *is* a juicy T3 horde to shoot at. So the trade-off for gaining that limited value anti-horde attack should be similarly minor. Especially if GW insists on not having wargear points to make the less powerful weapon less of an investment.


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in us
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard





 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
A.T. mentioned Assault Marines.

They, and Striking Scorpions, are to me good examples of the game being on the wonk.

Most of your models would have Stick and Pistol, with no difference between your Stick, and my Stick. Both would grant the foe their full armour save.

But, Vet Sarge and Exarch could typically pack something a bit hittier, like a Powerfist or Scorpion’s Claw. And they did your really reliable damage, regardless of who or what you were duffing up. This left the feeling that the rest of the squad were really just ablative wounds in a Powerfist Delivery System.

Contrast with the preceding system. Whilst Scorpions were stuck with their Ritual Gear, they could at least Parry, giving them a real edge against bog standard infantry, as you were more likely to win a given fight. And the Chainswords alone made your Scorpions S4. Assault Marines could have a lot of upgrades. Power Swords, Power Axes, Plasma Pistols, Power Fists, Hand Flamers. Points intensive, yes. But made for a pretty Killy squad provided you had at least some discretion in what you tried to beat up.

And so the AP system really made combat a bit boring. Any squad with all Power Weapons were just inherently more reliable, as they negated armour saves entirely. Everyone else had a tooled up squad leader, with his mates just there to catch bullets.

That for me fundamentally changed the feel of the game.


Lemme make sure I'm reading this right -
In 2nd Assault Marines could do all pistol+power sword/fist/maul/axe etc
In 3rd+ Power Weapons negated armor saves

But in 3rd Assault Squads had already lost the armory access - so no more power weapons (except on the leader)
In 2nd Power Weapons didn't automatically negate saves - most were -3, 1 was -2, and the fist was -5 but 3+ -3 still saves on a 6.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in mx
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan




Mexico

The AP system is fundamentally flawed in a game in which armor is a faction characteristic and half the game runs on 3+ or better.

For it to work you would need to either merge Marines and Guard into a single army with a variety of armor saves (and force them to play mixed armies) or nerf power armor into 4+.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2025/01/08 20:26:48


 
   
Made in gb
Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord




 Tyran wrote:
The AP system is fundamentally flawed in a game in which armor is a faction characteristic and half the game runs on 3+ or better.

For it to work you would need to either merge Marines and Guard into a single army with a variety of armor saves (and force them to play mixed armies) or nerf power armor into 4+.



Hooo boy, now we're talking. I'm not against this.

Assuming a recalibration and a squash down the scale.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2025/01/08 20:33:02


 
   
Made in gb
Ridin' on a Snotling Pump Wagon






Breton wrote:
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
A.T. mentioned Assault Marines.

They, and Striking Scorpions, are to me good examples of the game being on the wonk.

Most of your models would have Stick and Pistol, with no difference between your Stick, and my Stick. Both would grant the foe their full armour save.

But, Vet Sarge and Exarch could typically pack something a bit hittier, like a Powerfist or Scorpion’s Claw. And they did your really reliable damage, regardless of who or what you were duffing up. This left the feeling that the rest of the squad were really just ablative wounds in a Powerfist Delivery System.

Contrast with the preceding system. Whilst Scorpions were stuck with their Ritual Gear, they could at least Parry, giving them a real edge against bog standard infantry, as you were more likely to win a given fight. And the Chainswords alone made your Scorpions S4. Assault Marines could have a lot of upgrades. Power Swords, Power Axes, Plasma Pistols, Power Fists, Hand Flamers. Points intensive, yes. But made for a pretty Killy squad provided you had at least some discretion in what you tried to beat up.

And so the AP system really made combat a bit boring. Any squad with all Power Weapons were just inherently more reliable, as they negated armour saves entirely. Everyone else had a tooled up squad leader, with his mates just there to catch bullets.

That for me fundamentally changed the feel of the game.


Lemme make sure I'm reading this right -
In 2nd Assault Marines could do all pistol+power sword/fist/maul/axe etc
In 3rd+ Power Weapons negated armor saves

But in 3rd Assault Squads had already lost the armory access - so no more power weapons (except on the leader)
In 2nd Power Weapons didn't automatically negate saves - most were -3, 1 was -2, and the fist was -5 but 3+ -3 still saves on a 6.


Exactly that. And because 3rd and 4th (possibly 5th? Can’t remember when melee AP was introduced) an Assault Marine essentially had no AP, they just didn’t feel particularly deadly.

Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?

Hey look! It’s my 2025 Hobby Log/Blog/Project/Whatevs 
   
Made in us
The Marine Standing Behind Marneus Calgar





Upstate, New York

They weren’t deadly, but still had some use.

3rd I used them a lot, lead by a chaplain. Who, granted did a lot of the lifting, but re-rolls and weight of attacks put some work in. Also 5 point plasma pistols.

They were a good backfield harassing unit. Against dedicated assault squads, they were not going to fare well. But they could beat a dev squad in a fight. And even if it took a few turns of slapping each other with pillows, the time it took was time the Dev’s LCs were not popping your tanks.

They were one of the units that took it on the chin hard in the simplification of 3rd, but that’s more a unit issue, and less of the AP system.

   
Made in us
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard





 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


Exactly that. And because 3rd and 4th (possibly 5th? Can’t remember when melee AP was introduced) an Assault Marine essentially had no AP, they just didn’t feel particularly deadly.


OK, then let me ask this cause I'm still getting lost here:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Any squad with all Power Weapons were just inherently more reliable, as they negated armour saves entirely. Everyone else had a tooled up squad leader,


Orighinally we're talking about Striking Scorpions and Assault Marines. In 2nd Assault Marines had beaucoup power (usually) swords. And in third units that had all Power Weapons being inherently more reliable/deadly - but in third Assault Marines only had the tooled up squad leader everyone else had. Is there a third unit I missed being named? There's a transition here I'm stumbling over.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in gb
Ridin' on a Snotling Pump Wagon






Sorry, my error.

In 2nd Ed Assault Marines were pretty reliable, as their loadout gave you real options.

3rd Ed? As only the Veteran had access to power weapons, the rest of the squad just became their ablative wounds.

Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?

Hey look! It’s my 2025 Hobby Log/Blog/Project/Whatevs 
   
Made in us
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard





 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Sorry, my error.

In 2nd Ed Assault Marines were pretty reliable, as their loadout gave you real options.

3rd Ed? As only the Veteran had access to power weapons, the rest of the squad just became their ablative wounds.


No problem, I just wanted to make sure cause I was really spinning my wheels on that one. Now a little later on it got even more "interesting" with Vanguard Vets.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in ca
Heroic Senior Officer





Krieg! What a hole...

Kinda miss it, but then again I had an army that was almost entirely AP3 (Tempestus Scions) with low-ish str. It made for an interesting combo, imo, where the issue was wounding more than piercing armor, and cover was a real issue.

Member of 40k Montreal There is only war in Montreal
Primarchs are a mistake
DKoK Blog:http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/419263.page Have a look, I guarantee you will not see greyer armies, EVER! Now with at least 4 shades of grey

Savageconvoy wrote:
Snookie gives birth to Heavy Gun drone squad. Someone says they are overpowered. World ends.

 
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




Aus

So when do we crack into the "D6 is a gak base for a wargame" debate? Absolutely loving these in depth (and polite!) grognard discussions! I'll admit from a fluff standpoint flashlights being able to do anything to a tank is gak, as is flamethrowers being able to harm a SM.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2025/01/08 22:06:00


 
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut





 RustyNumber wrote:
So when do we crack into the "D6 is a gak base for a wargame" debate? Absolutely loving these in depth (and polite!) grognard discussions! I'll admit from a fluff standpoint flashlights being able to do anything to a tank is gak, as is flamethrowers being able to harm a SM.


I don't think D6s are bad for a wargame and think that people are bit too enamoured with the theory of additional pips, rather than the practice. Slicing your percentages smaller and smaller reduces the effect of stat changes and leaves a set of stats that are impractical. Just because you could theoretically provide those stats doesn't mean they'll be practically useful in game.

ie going to a d12, 11+ is the same as 6+. But 6+ is already hard to balance because of how unlikely it is, so allowing the opportunity for a 12+ doesn't improve that. Similarly 2+ is 3+ on a d12, and it's already really good, so 2+ is going to be too much. So what you actually have is at best, 3+-11+ which is fine, except the steps are only 8% which means you won't get very big differences in your actual rolls.

Take 7+ (equal to 4+ on a d6) vs 8+ (4.5 on a d6). 10 rolls on a squads is 50% or 5 vs 58% or 5.8. Over 5 turns that squad will generate 4 extra dice. It's not nothing but it's also not a lot of anything. Push it to an extreme of d100s and you see the issue clearly, 1% difference is not nothing, but practically is.

Even a d8 only adds 2 pips to your range, at the cost of each individual pip having less improvement over the previous. Each stat change on a d8 is 12%, only 75% of the range of a d6, reducing the comparative impact of the stat by 25%.

For your game play to be interesting in a narrow window of dice rolls during the game, the stat differences need to be meaningful enough that they impact the gameplay, but not too binary that it's a coin flip.


The issue with D6s is how they're implemented, not their pip percentages. The more GW relies on static X+ rolls, the worse the d6 looks, because there's nowhere to go, except to roll more or less dice. But comparison rolls, where the range is abstracted from the stats, or dice pools of static X+ success values, are ways that D6s are used well.




   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






 RustyNumber wrote:
So when do we crack into the "D6 is a gak base for a wargame" debate? Absolutely loving these in depth (and polite!) grognard discussions! I'll admit from a fluff standpoint flashlights being able to do anything to a tank is gak, as is flamethrowers being able to harm a SM.

That's kinda funny because Flamers were one of the better options against SMs in 2nd edition, hitting multiple models with a -2 save modifier. I think you just assume that sensitive joints in the armor get burned away under sci-fi flamer acid-fuel.

Terminators could ignore the effects of continuous fire in 2nd though, iirc. It could damage them if they failed their save, but they wouldn't run around randomly like other models until the fire was extinguished.

. . .

But moving away from D6 is a non-starter for 40k I think. D6s are easy to get a lot of, easy to read at a distance, settle more cleanly than more-sided alternatives, and have proved to be versatile enough for the scope of the game. The problems of 40k typically arise from mechanics and stat distributions, not the dice.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2025/01/08 23:07:50


And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




I don't think D6s are the problem.

I guess I can kind of squint and see the issue from a verisimilitude perspective. I have unfortunately been trapped in a Games Workshop while some guy went on - and on - about how Bolters should be at least Krak grenade strength because he'd read a book once and...

But gameplay wise I just don't think it matters. You have the hit roll, the wound roll, the save roll. You can mess about with additional effects on top of this (Rending and mortal wounds, FNP). All this gives you considerable space for determining probabilities versus a range of targets.

I mean there have been people who seem to think my mind will be blown by a D12 world where say Marines are BS3+, Eldar BS4+ and Necrons BS5+. But... who cares? Logically it should all be reversed back to the points cost. So allowing for some level of soft stats - so "BS X/S Y/AP Z" shots have to be worth "the same points" as so many "BS A/S B/AP C" shots.

Its the same as people who say "Orks are inaccurate, so they should only hit on 6s". Fine - but then logically they have to have a bazillion shots on their shooting units to compensate this inaccuracy. Unless there's something "intrinsic" to Ork Shooting entailing you roll a KFC Bucket worth of dice (which it could be) then this is silly. The game would work entirely fine if the relative "lethality" of the unit shooting was abstracted down to fewer shots hitting on 3s.

Its like the ancient cliche of "I have two hand weapons so I get an extra attack". I mean okay as game abstraction it has a certain sense - but in real life this is just nonsense. Its much easier to attack twice with a weapon in one hand. Why should the number of swings I get depend on how many hands or tentacles I happen to have, as opposed to just how quick I am? (A rule which initially tended to only apply to characters but GW has belated started to roll out when they feel like it.)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2025/01/09 00:11:14


 
   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot





Minnesota

 Tyran wrote:
The AP system is fundamentally flawed in a game in which armor is a faction characteristic and half the game runs on 3+ or better.

For it to work you would need to either merge Marines and Guard into a single army with a variety of armor saves (and force them to play mixed armies) or nerf power armor into 4+.

Yeah and this was the fundamental problem with it in my view. In 40k the attacker selects the engagement, usually at least. This means the optimal strategy is to have a variety of guns (to give you the most options) but to skew every unit to a single identical defense (to deny your opponent options). If you play Nidzilla with all 2+ saves you negate the effectiveness of most weapons, and if you play a huge gaunt horde then you negate the value of most special and heavy weapons. But if you play a mix of 2+ carnifexes, 4+ genestealers, and 5+ gaunts then your opponent can use lascannons, heavy bolters, and flamers to full effectiveness.

So in order for the AP system to actually be interactive, with a mix of both AP and armor save values in both armies, you can't just allow armies to have a mix a saves you must force them to do so. And of course forcing Space Marine players to take units with bad saves would never happen. So the practical outcome of the AP system was that AP only mattered in list-building to counter the current "meta", and rarely allowed for interesting in-game choices because most of your opponent's army had the exact same save across the board.

Anuvver fing - when they do sumfing, they try to make it look like somfink else to confuse everybody. When one of them wants to lord it over the uvvers, 'e says "I'm very speshul so'z you gotta worship me", or "I know summink wot you lot don't know, so yer better lissen good". Da funny fing is, arf of 'em believe it and da over arf don't, so 'e 'as to hit 'em all anyway or run fer it.
 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






^I think that's more of an issue with a high probability of local metas being full of Marine or other 3+ save armies, CSM, Necrons. Because once Orks, DE, Nids (swarm) armies showed up it really revealed how unprepared number of lists were for dealing with a different set of targets.

I also think it's a shallow game if there's nothing more than AP-based target choice to make things interesting. There should still be a heirarchy of target priority to deal with, cover/LOS blocking, tactical opportunitites in the form of optimal assaults and unit coordination, placement of reinforcements or other avenues for effect like leadership effects (morale/pinning) or whatever.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2025/01/09 01:02:38


And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in au
Fresh-Faced New User




I always thought that the 3rd ed+ AP system was great for selling Space Marines but impossible to balance.

If some part of your points value is represented by your armour save and another part by your weapon's AP, those points are totally wasted if your opponent's armour is higher than your AP. While if your opponent's AP exceeds your armour save, the points constituting that AP are incredibly well spent.
A 3+ save AP5 army is overwhelmingly powerful against a 5+ save AP0-4 army. The same 5+ save army is comparatively durable and powerful against a 6+ save AP0 army.

In a system with save modifiers, you're always reducing the enemy's protection by a given amount, potentially negating it.
   
Made in us
Storm Trooper with Maglight





 Tyran wrote:
...merge Marines and Guard into a single army with a variety of armor saves...

Why condemn Guard for the sins of the Space Marines? I'd be the last to suggest that the SM codex needs more units, but *adding more med/light armor units (are chapter auxiliaries a thing?) or reworking power armor to have more varied save profiles seems the far better option here.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2025/01/09 07:35:42


 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




Now I do disagree on the d6 thing. For one it would make it possible for marine chapters/legions to be actualy different. SW could be better in melee, RG would get better cover and ultramarines wouldn't be the best, because they have the most special characters that modify basic rules.

In the end the problem with game isn't the save mods or the AP system. It is the game size and the rule set that tries to be both a table top game and a skirmish system at the same time.
In a perfect world GW would have to decide on one or the other. And we would either be playing with 20-30 models in a marine army, and have all the intricate weapon stats, grenades, special rules for units/armies/army variants/etc or we would get a something like Space marine devastator squads hits on +X, weapon option Anti personal wounds infantry on +3 vehicles/monsters on +5, and the Anti tank version wounds infantry on +5, wounds vehicles on +4, on +3 at half effective range.

And there could be maybe some faction specific rules, like tyranids could fire anti personal weapons at -1 after "running", Maybe the "special" IF rule would be that if they stand they do X. But the stuff would be limited and army/army type specific. No FnP, saves on only the most tough stuff (terminators, some walkers/monsters, some tanks). But then we would more or less be playing a smaller version of epic 2ed.
And again this is the perfect world. GW is not going to do away with the d6, they are still going to try to put skirmish style rules (LoS/terrain movement, weapon stats etc) in game where they want elit armies to run 40+ models.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






 RustyNumber wrote:
So when do we crack into the "D6 is a gak base for a wargame" debate? Absolutely loving these in depth (and polite!) grognard discussions! I'll admit from a fluff standpoint flashlights being able to do anything to a tank is gak, as is flamethrowers being able to harm a SM.


Flamethrowers are definitely able to harm tanks if aimed in the right place (i.e the engines), so I have no problem with the latter.

The thing about 40k is that no one person can grasp the fullness of it.

My 95th Praetorian Rifles.

SW Successors

Dwarfs
 
   
Made in gb
Witch Hunter in the Shadows





Oktoglokk wrote:
If some part of your points value is represented by your armour save and another part by your weapon's AP, those points are totally wasted if your opponent's armour is higher than your AP. While if your opponent's AP exceeds your armour save, the points constituting that AP are incredibly well spent.
Not exactly.

Your 5+ save models were usually considerably cheaper than your 3+ models. A marine might save one out of three wounds but you got three guardsmen to every marine, if not for reduced strength and accuracy the better armour would mean nothing.

And on the flip side those low AP weapons were points inefficient against the poor save models. Firing a plasmagun into a 5e marine was a good 16+pts of return on your 15pt gun. Not so much when you are killing a grot and a good way to lose the game was to turn up with piles of lascannons and power weapons only to get bogged down or run over by chaff - especially in eras of slower movement and no split fire where no matter how much stronger your units were they only had three or four actual attack actions all game.
   
Made in us
Stalwart Dark Angels Space Marine





Personally I think AP should reduce armor save instead of either completely negating it or doing nothing.

I also think terrain/cover should provide two possible bonuses.

Concealment: reduces the chance to hit, so concealment 1 would be -1 penalty to hit units in the terrain, concealment 2 would be -2 penalty to hit, etc.

Cover: negates points of AP. So terrain that provides Cover 1 would reduce 1 point of AP from weapons shooting into the terrain, Cover 2 would reduce 2 points of AP, etc.

So, AP can be dangerous for every unit, and terrain can provide different bonuses and different mixes of bonuses, either making units harder to hit with shooting, or helping negate AP. Some special weapons could have "ignore cover" or "ignore concealment" to provide good situational bonuses. And every unit has some reason to want to be in terrain instead of either NEEDIng to be in terrain or wanting to completely ignore being in terrain at all.

I would also reduce some movement penalties for terrain to make it easier to keep things moving.

Nostalgically Yours 
   
Made in us
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard





While I'm thinking about it - yes the 3E-Whenever AP system was inherently flawed. The hard plateaus lead to huge valleys in RNG. If your weapon didn't invalidate the same outright, when it came to armor saves there was no differentiation between it and a lasgun - in other words a 3+ Space Marine was as afraid of a big giant vehicle mounted Autocannon with AP4 as they were of a pitiful AP- lasgun once you got to the armor save step.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 RustyNumber wrote:
So when do we crack into the "D6 is a gak base for a wargame" debate? Absolutely loving these in depth (and polite!) grognard discussions! I'll admit from a fluff standpoint flashlights being able to do anything to a tank is gak, as is flamethrowers being able to harm a SM.


The vast majority of wargames published in the history of wargaming have used D6s. I can name you plenty of modern systems that use D6s and have no need for other dice. D6s are fine.

40K's problem is implementation, and one of the factors directly relevant to this thread is GW making the baseline average profile one that saves on a 3+. In the all-or-nothing system, the prevalence of Marines made AP3 a magic breakpoint. In the modifier system, a single step better halves your incoming damage, a single step worse increases it by 50%.

Linear modifiers on individual dice have outsized impact in this environment that would not be nearly as problematic if the baseline was 4+ or 5+. Or simply folded into a more generic defensive stat, because the modeled distinction between Toughness, Wounds, and Save is now entirely arbitrary and in practice T and Sv are largely redundant to one another.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2025/01/09 16:45:16


   
Made in fi
Posts with Authority






 catbarf wrote:
 RustyNumber wrote:
So when do we crack into the "D6 is a gak base for a wargame" debate? Absolutely loving these in depth (and polite!) grognard discussions! I'll admit from a fluff standpoint flashlights being able to do anything to a tank is gak, as is flamethrowers being able to harm a SM.


The vast majority of wargames published in the history of wargaming have used D6s. I can name you plenty of modern systems that use D6s and have no need for other dice. D6s are fine.

40K's problem is implementation, and one of the factors directly relevant to this thread is GW making the baseline average profile one that saves on a 3+. In the all-or-nothing system, the prevalence of Marines made AP3 a magic breakpoint. In the modifier system, a single step better halves your incoming damage, a single step worse increases it by 50%.

Linear modifiers on individual dice have outsized impact in this environment that would not be nearly as problematic if the baseline was 4+ or 5+. Or simply folded into a more generic defensive stat, because the modeled distinction between Toughness, Wounds, and Save is now entirely arbitrary and in practice T and Sv are largely redundant to one another.


Are you sure about that?

It is my understanding that in a typical Warhammer game system, when it comes to shooting, the most prescious stat (after the amount of shots a weapon fires) is the to-hit roll number, followed by toughness, followed by save. This being because the dice pools are resolved in the shoot-wound-save order, and whichever comes first affects the amount of dice that get to the next stage the most.

Or is this because to wound roll values are dictated by the S-vs-T table, in which 1 pip +/- is not as significant as in the other two stages, which modulate linearly?

"The larger point though, is that as players, we have more control over what the game looks and feels like than most of us are willing to use in order to solve our own problems" 
   
Made in us
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard





 catbarf wrote:
 RustyNumber wrote:
So when do we crack into the "D6 is a gak base for a wargame" debate? Absolutely loving these in depth (and polite!) grognard discussions! I'll admit from a fluff standpoint flashlights being able to do anything to a tank is gak, as is flamethrowers being able to harm a SM.


The vast majority of wargames published in the history of wargaming have used D6s. I can name you plenty of modern systems that use D6s and have no need for other dice. D6s are fine.

40K's problem is implementation, and one of the factors directly relevant to this thread is GW making the baseline average profile one that saves on a 3+.


They didn't. The players did. There is a fault with GW and implementation, but its not quite everybody and their sister having an MEQ army. The problem with GW implementation is (almost) everyone follows the same formula. Various "eldar" for example have same-to-hit, same-to-wound- and moderate saves - instead of harder to hit, same-to-wound, and moderate saves to reflect their agility. Arguably the biggest cookie cutter divergence are harlequinns that use(d) Invulns as their baseline save. How much different would it be if all the Space Elves had some sort of (balanced) baseline -1 to hit - i.e. from outside 12" or when not-battleshocked, or all the time - whatever is balanced. What if we still had an Initiative Stat, and all the to-hit rolls were opposed like the to-wound rolls? Ballistic Skill vs Initiative, Weapon Skill vs Weapon Skill, same 2+/3+/4+/5+/6+ chart To Wound uses. Now basic Aeldari have an I of 5, your Tactical Marine has a BS of 4, hit on a 5+. GEQ have BS 3 hit on a 5+. Harlequinns have I6 5+, 6+ etc. Meanwhile Devastators with their Targeter have BS5 vs I5 is a hit on 4's, and Hellhounds with their flamers auto-hit. 90% of the differentiation is all on the one dice roll, the armor save. Spread it out so that different factions/units get their differences on other rolls.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





Funamentally flawed. To fix it it would need to be changed so drastically that it couldn't be called the same system.

hello 
   
Made in gb
Ridin' on a Snotling Pump Wagon






 tauist wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
 RustyNumber wrote:
So when do we crack into the "D6 is a gak base for a wargame" debate? Absolutely loving these in depth (and polite!) grognard discussions! I'll admit from a fluff standpoint flashlights being able to do anything to a tank is gak, as is flamethrowers being able to harm a SM.


The vast majority of wargames published in the history of wargaming have used D6s. I can name you plenty of modern systems that use D6s and have no need for other dice. D6s are fine.

40K's problem is implementation, and one of the factors directly relevant to this thread is GW making the baseline average profile one that saves on a 3+. In the all-or-nothing system, the prevalence of Marines made AP3 a magic breakpoint. In the modifier system, a single step better halves your incoming damage, a single step worse increases it by 50%.

Linear modifiers on individual dice have outsized impact in this environment that would not be nearly as problematic if the baseline was 4+ or 5+. Or simply folded into a more generic defensive stat, because the modeled distinction between Toughness, Wounds, and Save is now entirely arbitrary and in practice T and Sv are largely redundant to one another.


Are you sure about that?

It is my understanding that in a typical Warhammer game system, when it comes to shooting, the most prescious stat (after the amount of shots a weapon fires) is the to-hit roll number, followed by toughness, followed by save. This being because the dice pools are resolved in the shoot-wound-save order, and whichever comes first affects the amount of dice that get to the next stage the most.

Or is this because to wound roll values are dictated by the S-vs-T table, in which 1 pip +/- is not as significant as in the other two stages, which modulate linearly?


Very broadly I’d agree. Let’s say we’re comparing two guns. Both have 36” range. Both have Strength 6. One has AP4, and six shots. The other has AP1 and one shot.

In this deliberately simplified example, AP4 and six shots has greater ubiquity than AP1 and one shot. You’re cushioned against a poor dice roll at every stage, and you’ve a greater variety of worthwhile targets, as the six shots can be used to mess up infantry and light vehicles, as well as pose a middling threat to side and rear armour values.

But, the comparison is flawed, because this is 40K, and we can be sure there’s a 36” range, S6, AP3 and three shots weapon to be put into the mix, which trumps the other two precisely because of the AP3. I’m arguably sacrificing three shots, but I’m bypassing the majority of armour saves.

Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?

Hey look! It’s my 2025 Hobby Log/Blog/Project/Whatevs 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: