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.

Ok so had an idea while on the epiphany toilet earlier today, hear me out please:

Current AP system in 40k is, whatever number the AP is, any armor save equal to or worse than that AP value is negated.

Alternative AP system:
New AP value of weapons is six minus the current AP value. This number is then added on to an armor save.
For example, an autocannon wounds a marine. It has an AP value of 4.
6 - 4 = 2
The marine's default armor save is 3+
The 2 is added on to the marine's armor save: 3 + 2 = 5
The marine now saves on a 5+

Multiple Saves:
All saves may be taken in this order of operations:
Cover save -> Invulnerable Save -> Armor Save -> Feel No Pain

This may seem detrimental against shooting as invul/armor saves combined with cover may seem overpowered against shooting but very few units can get a 4++ or better, which is one of the biggest buff-ers in this system. Note, however, that these units will also be stronger in close combat. Thus this change doesn't so much nerf shooting as it simply buffs certain units.
Will this primarily benefit power armor armies? I don't know but let us theorycraft a bit and see.

Possible balance changes I can think of (I'm ignoring FnP because it does the exact same thing as before, reduce the chance to wound a unit by 50% when and where applicable):
Small arms without an AP value become weaker
Small arms with an AP value becomes stronger (eg. bolters reducing power armor's save by 1; hey look, power armor is now as weak as they are in fluff against bolters!)
Power armor in cover will be sturdier than they were before
Power armor out of cover, in the open, will be significantly weaker
Ap6 weapons are null. Gaunts and boyz may take their t-shirt saves, woopdeedoo.
Units with armor and invul save become more resilient in close combat against non-power weapons.
Units that do not rely on armor saves will not be affected or become stronger against shooting while in cover; like many units that just have a 5++.

Some units off the top of my head that get buffed or become worth taking with alternate system:
(Also, an opinionated rating system that do not indicate how good they will be but rather, how much they benefit from said changes)

Marines
+++Force Commander, Chapter Master and other HQs
++Terminators
+++Assault Terminators
++Scouts in cover

Demons
++Plaguebearers
+++Bloodletters
++Demon Prince
++Bloodcrushers

Chaos Marines
++Demon Prince
++Chaos Lord
++Chaos Sorc
+++Thousand sons
+Plague Marines
++Possessed CSM
++Obliterators
++Icon of Tzeentch

Orks
+Cybork bodies

Tau
++Tau crisis suits w/ shield generator
++Any tau infantry with access to shield drones

General
++Vehicles with an invulnerable save
++Turbo-boosting bikes with an armor save



Thoughts? Criticism? Interested?

I have always thought there was something wrong with the AP system. The reason may be that I started out with WHFB and there the system is that S4 lowers your save by 1 (from 5+ to 6+) S5 lowers it by 2 etc. Then we go to 40k. Take a lasgun and a bolter. They have exactly the same chance of penetrating lets say... carapace armor. I think that a bolt would go through a bit more easily. This just has been bothering me.

Your idea here is going to the right direction. I might ask a couple of friends about playtesting this. Just one thing though. I'd skip the multiple saves. Maybe, just maybe, cover or armor save + invulnerable save (and all the special rule stuff like feel no pain and such) but no more.

I guess until there's a table of AP values, it would be difficult to do so.
I think 6 minus weapon AP would be the way to go.
Also, reason for multiple saves was so 2+ armor saves wouldn't be solely penalized this change as you do pay quite a hefty premium to acquire such saves.
Also, fantasy does it (multiple saves) iirc. Cover or armor save + invul sounds pleasant too though.
Really, if it wasn't for the feel no paingels dex and FNP FOR EVERYONE thing that GW's doing, this would work great.

Fantasy does multiple saves meaning armor save and ward save (if you have one). Kinda what I was going for with that cover or armor + invul.

FNP can be a... can be frustrating. If there is too much of it the game isn't as much fun anymore.

I knew you could take ward saves in addition to armor saves but aren't there cover saves as well? How do those work?

Cover does not give saves in FB. They give penalty to rolls to hit when shooting. An arrow does not penetrate a rock fence but a bolter round propably would.

I can see where you're coming with this system, but it wouldn't work with the current Ap system.

Example: In your theory, an Ap3 Krak Missile hitting a Space Marine would make him add +3 to his armour save, giving him a 6+ save.

However, an Ap4 Heavy Bolter, weaker under the current system, would add +4 to his save, giving him no save at all.

While it would be possible, the Ap values of every weapon would have to be changed beforehand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

terranarc wrote:Really, if it wasn't for the feel no paingels dex and FNP FOR EVERYONE thing that GW's doing, this would work great.

GW really isn't giving FNP to everyone. Blood Angels, sure they get it after paying for Sang. Priests, and yes Dark Eldar get it after destroying certain units. However, only one Grey Knight unit can get it: Paladins, and even then they have to pay a premium for it, none of this FNP FOR EVERYONE!!!111!

Valkyrie wrote:I can see where you're coming with this system, but it wouldn't work with the current Ap system.

Example: In your theory, an Ap3 Krak Missile hitting a Space Marine would make him add +3 to his armour save, giving him a 6+ save.

However, an Ap4 Heavy Bolter, weaker under the current system, would add +4 to his save, giving him no save at all.

While it would be possible, the Ap values of every weapon would have to be changed beforehand.

GW really isn't giving FNP to everyone. Blood Angels, sure they get it after paying for Sang. Priests, and yes Dark Eldar get it after destroying certain units. However, only one Grey Knight unit can get it: Paladins, and even then they have to pay a premium for it, none of this FNP FOR EVERYONE!!!111!

No no no. AP would follow the formula of:

6 - [weapon AP value] = amount added to armor save

Otherwise, a meltagun would penetrate diddly squat while a frag missile with AP6 would become the ender of worlds.
So a heavy bolter AP4 would be 6 - Ap4= new Ap2
5+ and higher would be negated
4+ would become 6+
3+ would become 5+
2+ would become 4+
1+ would become 3+
0+ would become 2+
If only 40k permitted saves greater than 2+....

gaovinni wrote:Cover does not give saves in FB. They give penalty to rolls to hit when shooting. An arrow does not penetrate a rock fence but a bolter round propably would.

Ah, it seems like fantasy archers have more balls than 40k marines since 40k cover is mostly justified by "missing the opportunity to take the shot" rather than actually having the projectile hitting an intervening object.

WHFB 8th Edition Rulebook wrote:Moving and Shooting -1
Firing at Long Range -1
Standing and Shooting -1
Target Behind Soft Cover -1
Target Behind Hard Cover -2

This seems kinda cool. Ruins, sandbags, anything that gives a 4+ cover would count as hard cover while anything that gives 5+ cover counts as soft cover.

I would definitely want to playtest this. Plus, there are barely any marine players where I play so I don't have to worry about those pesky 3++.

You are aware that these are almost verbatim rules from 2e, right?

You are aware that these are almost verbatim rules from 2e, right?

Indeed it is...


In my personal opinion, there's a reason why this is in Fantasy and not in 40k.

The biggest reason though would have to be simplicity in most cases. Since shooting is so much more important and game changing in 40k than in Fantasy, having every unit's armor save being modified (to be many different numbers...) would mean that unit prices would have to be changed, because those Space Marine's aren't as scary anymore when they're taking 4+'s and 5+'s.


Also

GW really isn't giving FNP to everyone. Blood Angels, sure they get it after paying for Sang. Priests, and yes Dark Eldar get it after destroying certain units. However, only one Grey Knight unit can get it: Paladins, and even then they have to pay a premium for it, none of this FNP FOR EVERYONE!!!111!

+1 to this. I don't see why people complain so much about FNP...

Bennowar wrote:You are aware that these are almost verbatim rules from 2e, right?

Wasn't 2e also the edition when terminators' armor save was on a 2d6? Out of curiosity.
Also, who knows, it could be just as fun. I mean, there's things about 5e that I don't like. Will it make it any less fun
Maybe 5e could learn a bit from 2e eh?

grayspark wrote:
The biggest reason though would have to be simplicity in most cases. Since shooting is so much more important and game changing in 40k than in Fantasy, having every unit's armor save being modified (to be many different numbers...) would mean that unit prices would have to be changed, because those Space Marine's aren't as scary anymore when they're taking 4+'s and 5+'s.

I mean, it's not like I'm saying that this will be super balanced. It's for fun, more than anything else. Also because of the the fact that an autocannon having the same chance to break a marine's armor as a lasgun was driving me nuts.
So you mean to tell me that this thing here has the same chance as a flashlight to bypass power armor? NO! I REFUSE!!
Also shows why S6+ weapons are instant death against guardsmen (skip to 2:40).



Now,
Will it break the game? I won't know until I playtest it. Will certain units be overcosted/undercosted for what they are? Definitely. But hey, it's not we don't have that situation going on right now amirite? *knudge knudge*

Also, yes I'm aware of the implications it has to any model that relies on a good armor save which is why I feel that multiple saves (including cover saves) will help balance it out. Hiding a squad of marines behind cover would give 4+ cover along with whatever their armor save has been modified to. Simultaneously, for GEQ stuff, hiding behind cover won't change much for the most part. Yes, marines get less save both in cover and, drastically, out of cover but their bolters gain extra penetration too!

Another SIMPLER alternative is to state the weapon damage as AP(armour peircing) NOT strenght.
And give ALL weapons an AP value of 5 to 12.(Bonus dice added to penetration to specialised weapons.)

ALL units get an AR(Armour/Resistance to damage ) value from 1 to 15.

Simply deduct the AR from the AP to get the save roll required.

Eg An Ork boy AR 2 is hit by a Bolter AP7.
7-2=5. The ork Boy gts a 5+ save.


A SM AR 4 is hit by a bolter AP 7.
7-4= 3 The SM gets a 3+ save.

This follows the BASIC principle weapons are developed to inflict damage, and armour is developed to deflect absorb weapon damage.
The ARMOUR modifies the weapon damage to give an apropriately scaled save value.

No aditional modifiers , ALL elements coved with ONE simple system.

I don't understand how that would be simpler though. I would have to assign every single non-vehicle unit an AR value.
Is using modified saves really so bad for you that you'd rather go through every codex and assign an AR for all monstrous creatures and infantry as well as a new AP value for every single ranged weapon in 40k?

No thanks man, I'd rather just do 6-AP+armorSave=new save
especially since we already have AP values.
I mean, I'm not just theorycrafting this, I intend to playtest it and have fun with it. If you want to create an Ork, CSM, Nid, DE and IG table with those values, I'd gladly give it a shot.

terranarc wrote:

Bennowar wrote:You are aware that these are almost verbatim rules from 2e, right?

Wasn't 2e also the edition when terminators' armor save was on a 2d6? Out of curiosity.

It was. I seem to remember Khornate termies being able to get a 2+ save on 2D6. Some weapons (bows and arrows to name one) actually had a positive modifier to your save.

Wait a minute... a 2+ on a 2d6? That sounds a bit impossible.

Interesting system, ill be sure to give it a go

Lanrak wrote: Another SIMPLER alternative is to state the weapon damage as AP(armour peircing) NOT strenght.
And give ALL weapons an AP value of 5 to 12.(Bonus dice added to penetration to specialised weapons.)

ALL units get an AR(Armour/Resistance to damage ) value from 1 to 15.

Simply deduct the AR from the AP to get the save roll required.

Eg An Ork boy AR 2 is hit by a Bolter AP7.
7-2=5. The ork Boy gts a 5+ save.


A SM AR 4 is hit by a bolter AP 7.
7-4= 3 The SM gets a 3+ save.

This follows the BASIC principle weapons are developed to inflict damage, and armour is developed to deflect absorb weapon damage.
The ARMOUR modifies the weapon damage to give an apropriately scaled save value.

No aditional modifiers , ALL elements coved with ONE simple system.

Doesn't work, because now if terminator AR 6 is hit by bolter AP 7 he gets a 1+ save. Now some weapons have zero chance of penetrating armour, and where does rolling to wound fit in?

Hi lootaboy.
If the targets AR value is higher than the AP of the weapon.
The target is INVUNERABLE to physical damage from that weapon.(We dont need a seperate set of invunerable saves ...)

The targets resistance to damage (toughness) can be included in the AR value.

More detailed damage can be used, supressive effects and degredation of effectivness over time for vehicles -MCs.

Eg An IG Squad firng at Chaos Termies can not damage tham with las guns but COULD supress them.


This system work in a new rule set better .(Any elegant intuitive solution looks out of place in 40ks old fashioned clunky and abstract rules.)

1)Roll to spot target.(Roll over targets Stealth value.)
2)Roll to damage.AP-AR= save roll required.

3a)Type 1 units(Remove casualties.)
Then test for morale damage (supression )

3b) Roll on damage table for type 2 units.

3 step damage resolution that takes into account the disposition of the atacker and target, relevant abilities of the opposing units, and allows morale damage and finer detail in the end resolution.
Better than 40k current damage resolution mechanic from WHFB.

Did the OP say the new system, HAD to be compatible with 40k...if he did sorry.

terranarc wrote:Wait a minute... a 2+ on a 2d6? That sounds a bit impossible.

Have to remember that almost everything had a negative save modifier. Bolters had a -1 and powerfists had -6 (IIRC). So it was pretty much useless firing small arms at termies.

Bennowar wrote:

terranarc wrote:Wait a minute... a 2+ on a 2d6? That sounds a bit impossible.

Have to remember that almost everything had a negative save modifier. Bolters had a -1 and powerfists had -6 (IIRC). So it was pretty much useless firing small arms at termies.

Oooh. Wow that sounds awesome. Now why would GW abandon such an amazing system for the crap we have today?

Because it was complicated.. And this one works better..

loota boy wrote:Because it was complicated.. And this one works better..

Not overly. Reducing the value of an armour save is no more difficult than using the to S vs T to wound system.

But, yeah, this one probably does work better.

It's "better" in that it's faster and easier to remember, the old system was far more comprehensive. The new system does let you complete a 2000pt game in less than a weekend though...

Played a game with these rules. KFF + Cybork bodies was amazing.
For maximum break, did a 30 boyz squad with cybork body and eavy armor led by grotsnik and mekboy + KFF
Orks with EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE SAVE!? Rock onnnn

On the other hand, that squad cost me like 700-800 points cost me the game too since game was only 1500.