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.

Honestly the fact you think models with a 4+ save were still using a lot is kinda hilarious, especially with 6th/7th.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Honestly the fact you think models with a 4+ save were still using a lot is kinda hilarious, especially with 6th/7th.

Okay? Your point being what exactly? Using a lot of what?

6 and 7th ed had easy to spam low AP value weapons so i dont think any one is saying Sv 4+ was survivable during that time, it is under the HH AP system a lot more survivable now.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

If you are upset about Nids getting exploded well, i mean im sorry you are playing a horde army thats kinda their thing if you are not wearing any armor and are just getting tshirt saves not sure what to tell you about that.

I'm not upset about gaunts being exploded. I was upset about Warriors and Monsters getting exploded. Warriors's defensive profile was awkwardly bad as T4 Sv4+ was easy to kill by way too many weapons.

As for monsters, I mean, in HH 2.0 dreads have T7 W6 Sv2+ because that is the kind of defensive profile a monster needs to survive HH 2.0 AP environment, not even the 5th-7th AP environment.

Actually its really not, the majority of the community is already on the side that Dreads are way over powered in HH 2.0. they need to be sv 3. Dreadnaughts are insanely durable for their point cost. The only solution to them is either ot have another dread swing into them, or hit them with incredibly high damage weapons, or disintegrators which are very rare in the game.
Or you have to throw a 5 man terminator squad at them and use things like chain fists and power fists to beat them.

OMG! You have to use Anti-Tank weapons against walking tanks! What a novel concept.
Anyone sobbing about this had best stick to playing 8e/9e 40k.

Im not upset about having to use anti tank weapons against heavy army though?

Something can still need to be taken down with heavy armor and still be over powered. Contemptors are that example.
Base they are 175 points
S,T 7, W6, BS and WS 5, with a 2+ save, a 5+ invuln and they cant be Instant death'ed, instead any ID wound they take they just turn into d3 wounds instead.

The stat line is fine, not for the cost though is the point, they are extremely durable for their price.
But thats on the topic of a specific unit not AP.

ccs wrote:

OMG! You have to use Anti-Tank weapons against walking tanks! What a novel concept.

What AP are Krak Missiles in HH?

 Insectum7 wrote:

ccs wrote:

OMG! You have to use Anti-Tank weapons against walking tanks! What a novel concept.

What AP are Krak Missiles in HH?

AP3.

Another option is to distinguish APMOD from each other based on their scale.
ie

Anti Infantry (AI only applies modifiers to infantry)
Anti tank (AT applies to tanks, ignores infantry armour entirely)
Anti Materiel (AM applies to superheavies, ignores tanks and infantry)


That tiered system gives you a combination of all or nothing - appropriate for larger weapons, while also allowing you to scale your modifiers inside the unit types.

You can also have special rules on units like a land raider being a superheavy for armour purpses, or terminators being tanks for armour purposes.

It also means you don't ahve to push saves on units up if tanks ignore AI modifiers entirely you are able to have lower saves that are only affected by AT weapons.

Combine this with a limited AP range of -1 to -3, then you get a better balance as well.

ie ap-3 AI weapons have no effect on tanks at all, but give a marine a 6+ save. While a plasma gun might be -2 AT and a melta -3 AT. Both ignore infantry armour, but apply a limited save mod to tanks.

And so on.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

ccs wrote:

OMG! You have to use Anti-Tank weapons against walking tanks! What a novel concept.

What AP are Krak Missiles in HH?

AP3.

Thanks. Well, Dreadnoughts getting a 2+ save vs. a Krak Missile doesn't seem right at all.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

ccs wrote:

OMG! You have to use Anti-Tank weapons against walking tanks! What a novel concept.

What AP are Krak Missiles in HH?

AP3.

Thanks. Well, Dreadnoughts getting a 2+ save vs. a Krak Missile doesn't seem right at all.

Its not, a lot of people feel dreads are over tuned for their point cost, coming in at 175 for all of that, 25 points more then we are talking reasonable.

But the tiered system mentioned above was something else i was a fan of, more specifcally a mix of the All or nothing system and the mod system with:
AP < save = no save
AP> save = save
AP = save = Save -1

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

ccs wrote:

OMG! You have to use Anti-Tank weapons against walking tanks! What a novel concept.

What AP are Krak Missiles in HH?

AP3.

Thanks. Well, Dreadnoughts getting a 2+ save vs. a Krak Missile doesn't seem right at all.

Almost anything getting a 2+ save vs. Krak missiles doesn't feel right, but the problem is that GW went overboard with ap mods in 8th/9th so people forgot how bad the old AP system was.

You can go even more abstract with a split armour system like so:

Sv 2+/4+ - 5+/6+ - 3+/4+ etc

AP > Sv, make normal save
AP < Sv, no save
AP = Sv, use secondary save value

The issue with using a default -1 for the =sv value, is it has wildly different affects on different armours.

ironically, if the better the ap, the more destructive it should be to the target, with ap1 being the most powerful.

ap2 only reducing terminator armour to 3+ is imo not really reflective of the power of the attack.

Remembering that as soon as a save hits 4+, it's no longer reliable. From a mechanical perspective worse saves should be treated less harshly by AP, given they're just getting worse.

So another alternative would be:

svs of 4+ and 5+ hit by AP4 and AP5 would be reduced by -1, while 2+ and 3+ should be reduced by -2. Remembering that AP3 IGNORES 4+ and 5+ entirely, having it reduce a 3+ to a 5+ is nowhere near as bad.

The minimum reduction would be to a 6+ save, as that's so unlikely to succeed, removing it entirely is just crappy.



Thinking on it more, I actually think 5th ed AP using this might work fairly well.

I'd probably write it out like this:

AP > Sv, make normal save
AP < Sv, no save
AP = Sv, -1 to save (-2 if AP3 or less)


Remembering that it's about the way the mechanics balance against each other and is abstract. It balances the armour saves better, given that crappy saves are already handicapped.

Hecaton wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

ccs wrote:

OMG! You have to use Anti-Tank weapons against walking tanks! What a novel concept.

What AP are Krak Missiles in HH?

AP3.

Thanks. Well, Dreadnoughts getting a 2+ save vs. a Krak Missile doesn't seem right at all.

Almost anything getting a 2+ save vs. Krak missiles doesn't feel right, but the problem is that GW went overboard with ap mods in 8th/9th so people forgot how bad the old AP system was.

Old AP system was hot garbage. It's especially funny to me how people bring up old AP3 when I legit think that was less common than AP2 itself.

Quasistellar wrote:
The current problem with plasma is platform cost and RoI.

Hellblasters and Inceptors with plasma are exorbitantly expensive compared to their durabilty.

To be good, they pretty much need to kill their points cost in one volley of fire, because they are extremely easy to kill, and they also kill themselves. Inceptors especially get bitten by this, as they typically deep strike away from a reroll 1s aura.

I don't think Plasma will ever be properly balanced until they change the rule from "model is slain" to "unit suffers a mortal wound". They will always be either "too good" or "not good enough" until then.

Yeah...about that. Go compare what a squad of Hellblasters are capable of dmg/durability wise to that of a unit of Lootas. 5 Hellblasters standing in the open take 90 Bolter shots to reliably kill. 90 shots, 60 hits, 30 wounds, 10dmg. 12 lootas standing in the open (3pts more expensive then hellblasters) take just under 65 shots to kill.

Against Marines, 5 hellblasters get 5 over-charged shots, 3.33 hits, 2.7 wounds and kill 2.3 Marines. 12 Lootas (10 lootas 2 spannas with big shootas) get 20 shots, 6.6 hits, 4.4 wounds and 1.48 dead Marines, the big shootas get 6 shots, 2 hits, 1.33 wounds and 0.44dmg. Brings total dmg up to 3.37 compared to the Hellblasters 4.6

Its not that Hellblasters NEED to make their points back in a single turn, they are significantly better than a lot of other choices, its that they are dangerous to the enemy so they get targeted for destruction rather quickly, where as lootas can mostly be chipped to death with left over bolt fire.

Not to mention, units that make their points back in a single shooting phase are by default OP. Why take any other units if I can alpha strike and make my points back in a single turn? If you have 2k points on the table and 700pts of your army gets in range and kill its points value in a single turn while the rests plucks maybe 300....you just won the game turn 1 with no effort.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:


Yes and everything you just mentioned is addressed fully in the AP revamp of HH 2.0. The average AP of weapons in HH 2.0 is AP5, even most special and heavy wepaons are average AP 4 and 3 but come with Breaching and rending rules. Very few weapons are guaranteed AP3,2 or 1 at range.
Pie plate AP3 and 2 are virtually none existant in the game any more. The largest and lowest AP pie plate i have seen was the plasma blast canon which is AP3 and can only be taken on warhounds and stormblades.

If you are upset about Nids getting exploded well, i mean im sorry you are playing a horde army thats kinda their thing if you are not wearing any armor and are just getting tshirt saves not sure what to tell you about that.

And the reality is, that yes the game will always be balanced around the 3+sv because its the marine stat line, the marine stat line always has been and always will be the games base stat line to go off of, because at some pont some stat line will need to be the floor.

And again, those AP changes work in HH because most targets ignore the AP for the most part. When you play non-SM factions in 40k though its a bit different. Hey, i'm glad you get to feel cool with your 3+ save all the time while I just pickup boyz by the fistful, but at a certain point it gets boring for us to auto-lose because we didn't choose power armor. And before you say that doesn't happen....um, All of 7th would like to disagree. And as an aside, why was 7th so ridiculous? AP2 and AP3 because the most common weapon types. Grav centurions and Chaos Hell chickens ring a bell?

That is what necessitated a change to the AP system which only benefited Power Armored armies, prior to that change cover used to give a 4+ pseudo invuln save, now it just makes Marines go from a 4+ in cover to a 2+ while my Orkz went from a 4+ to a 5+.

I never said it did not happen. What i have been saying is that with HH changes, armies that operate on a 4+ are a lot more survivable vs where they were in past editions, and trust me you will get no arguments from me about how stupid spamable AP 3 and 2 was in 7th, and especially grav.

My entire point has been the AP has been curbed severely in HH, even for things with out an Sv3 as the most common weapons again are AP5 so you are still getting saves against that. Even plasma is just AP4.

If you are playing an army whos base is a tshirt save there is nothing much of just removing AP from the game that will make that any better for you. Those armies entire gimmic is meant to be high model counts to eat the wounds.

The lethality of 7th i dont think anyone is denying. The lethality of HH is massivly curbed. Have you seen the profiles of HH weapons?

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I never said it did not happen. What i have been saying is that with HH changes, armies that operate on a 4+ are a lot more survivable vs where they were in past editions, and trust me you will get no arguments from me about how stupid spamable AP 3 and 2 was in 7th, and especially grav.

My entire point has been the AP has been curbed severely in HH, even for things with out an Sv3 as the most common weapons again are AP5 so you are still getting saves against that. Even plasma is just AP4.

If you are playing an army whos base is a tshirt save there is nothing much of just removing AP from the game that will make that any better for you. Those armies entire gimmic is meant to be high model counts to eat the wounds.

The lethality of 7th i dont think anyone is denying. The lethality of HH is massivly curbed. Have you seen the profiles of HH weapons?

And if you want to go back to that AP system then you need to make boyz 4-5ppm or dramatically curb the # of shots other armies have while also INCREASING the number horde armies have to help defeat the now buffed medium-heavy armor of other infantry.

I'd rather not go back to a system where Marines just bring whatever weapons has the highest RoF and eliminate my entire army before I cross the table.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I never said it did not happen. What i have been saying is that with HH changes, armies that operate on a 4+ are a lot more survivable vs where they were in past editions, and trust me you will get no arguments from me about how stupid spamable AP 3 and 2 was in 7th, and especially grav.

My entire point has been the AP has been curbed severely in HH, even for things with out an Sv3 as the most common weapons again are AP5 so you are still getting saves against that. Even plasma is just AP4.

If you are playing an army whos base is a tshirt save there is nothing much of just removing AP from the game that will make that any better for you. Those armies entire gimmic is meant to be high model counts to eat the wounds.

The lethality of 7th i dont think anyone is denying. The lethality of HH is massivly curbed. Have you seen the profiles of HH weapons?

And if you want to go back to that AP system then you need to make boyz 4-5ppm or dramatically curb the # of shots other armies have while also INCREASING the number horde armies have to help defeat the now buffed medium-heavy armor of other infantry.

I'd rather not go back to a system where Marines just bring whatever weapons has the highest RoF and eliminate my entire army before I cross the table.

So here is whats wild about that, i agree with you. Boyz and nids should be cheaper and spammable. Thats their gimmic. They should be able to spam massive boy blobs that dont just easily break.

While I'm interested in the application and expansion of rules like rending and breaching, we don't technically need a return to the old AP system for them.

Scaling back the AP values and introducing such rules should in theory work.

I have no issue with infantry missile launchers being AP-2 or AP3 HH. If you think of them as current RPGs they are unlikely to really damage a new MBT but anything lighter is screwed. I do think we need to have a second scale of AT missile though that is used on larger platforms (more akin to the HK) or just increase the ROF, like a dread ML should fire D3 krak missiles, not just 1 (and 2D6 frag).

SemperMortis wrote:

Quasistellar wrote:
The current problem with plasma is platform cost and RoI.

Hellblasters and Inceptors with plasma are exorbitantly expensive compared to their durabilty.

To be good, they pretty much need to kill their points cost in one volley of fire, because they are extremely easy to kill, and they also kill themselves. Inceptors especially get bitten by this, as they typically deep strike away from a reroll 1s aura.

I don't think Plasma will ever be properly balanced until they change the rule from "model is slain" to "unit suffers a mortal wound". They will always be either "too good" or "not good enough" until then.

Yeah...about that. Go compare what a squad of Hellblasters are capable of dmg/durability wise to that of a unit of Lootas. 5 Hellblasters standing in the open take 90 Bolter shots to reliably kill. 90 shots, 60 hits, 30 wounds, 10dmg. 12 lootas standing in the open (3pts more expensive then hellblasters) take just under 65 shots to kill.

Against Marines, 5 hellblasters get 5 over-charged shots, 3.33 hits, 2.7 wounds and kill 2.3 Marines. 12 Lootas (10 lootas 2 spannas with big shootas) get 20 shots, 6.6 hits, 4.4 wounds and 1.48 dead Marines, the big shootas get 6 shots, 2 hits, 1.33 wounds and 0.44dmg. Brings total dmg up to 3.37 compared to the Hellblasters 4.6

Its not that Hellblasters NEED to make their points back in a single turn, they are significantly better than a lot of other choices, its that they are dangerous to the enemy so they get targeted for destruction rather quickly, where as lootas can mostly be chipped to death with left over bolt fire.

Not to mention, units that make their points back in a single shooting phase are by default OP. Why take any other units if I can alpha strike and make my points back in a single turn? If you have 2k points on the table and 700pts of your army gets in range and kill its points value in a single turn while the rests plucks maybe 300....you just won the game turn 1 with no effort.

Did you account for one hell blaster on average killing itself in that? I mean you pretty much just proved and agreed with my point that units like hellblasters with current plasma rules can only ever be OP or not worth taking.

I’m not sure what lootas have to do with plasma, but okay. I get it. You play orks and are mad.

Quasistellar wrote:

Did you account for one hell blaster on average killing itself in that? I mean you pretty much just proved and agreed with my point that units like hellblasters with current plasma rules can only ever be OP or not worth taking.

I’m not sure what lootas have to do with plasma, but okay. I get it. You play orks and are mad.

No, but i could just as easily give my Spannas KMBs which are de-facto Plasma guns, and then I have a 1/3rd chance to hit and a 1/6th chance to explode

As to your second comment, besides being a bit unnecessary do you think maybe its because I play orkz and therefore am more familiar with them and can compare what you are complaining about to a unit which is very similar in its application?

I find it hilarious that so many Marine players complain about SM units not being good enough, and dying right away, but when faced with other factions similar units being noticeably worse, immediately start using comments like

You play orkz and are mad

so they don't have to actually admit to themselves that the unit they are complaining about isn't as bad as they seem to think it is

SemperMortis wrote:

Quasistellar wrote:

Did you account for one hell blaster on average killing itself in that? I mean you pretty much just proved and agreed with my point that units like hellblasters with current plasma rules can only ever be OP or not worth taking.

I’m not sure what lootas have to do with plasma, but okay. I get it. You play orks and are mad.

No, but i could just as easily give my Spannas KMBs which are de-facto Plasma guns, and then I have a 1/3rd chance to hit and a 1/6th chance to explode

As to your second comment, besides being a bit unnecessary do you think maybe its because I play orkz and therefore am more familiar with them and can compare what you are complaining about to a unit which is very similar in its application?

I find it hilarious that so many Marine players complain about SM units not being good enough, and dying right away, but when faced with other factions similar units being noticeably worse, immediately start using comments like

You play orkz and are mad

so they don't have to actually admit to themselves that the unit they are complaining about isn't as bad as they seem to think it is

Or they're both bad, and you are playing some really weird one-downsmanship game. Because you're mad.

You know what, I think I'm done reading your posts. I went on an ignore spree when reading a certain recent closed thread, and the forum suddenly got much less toxic. I should have been way more liberal with that feature much sooner. It has resulted in a couple threads being almost literal pages of ignored users, though . But that's pretty much code now for when the thread has gone off the rails and into uselessness anyway

Yep, instead of making a valid point or showing me how the factual numbers I provided are some how wrong, yep just hit the ignore button.

Considering how easy it is to get RR1s on a Marine unit… you’re not likely losing a ton of Hellblasters to 1s unless your luck is truly atrocious.

Quasistellar wrote:
Or they're both bad, and you are playing some really weird one-downsmanship game. Because you're mad.

Calling him mad because he used a comparison to point out that your Hellblasters really aren't as fragile as you seem to think they are is pretty childish.

The idea that a fragile unit has to be capable of reliably making its points back in one round of shooting is questionable to begin with. The challenge with a glass hammer or deep-striking unit is figuring out how you can maximize its effectiveness and survive long enough to earn its keep. If they can just deploy anywhere from DS or waltz out from behind cover and kill their own value in one attack, there's no skill involved; the game just plays on autopilot.

And frankly, when said unit is T4/W2/3+ (with innate AP-1 no less), it's a lot easier to keep them alive to shoot again than a unit like Lootas, Scourges, Special Weapons Squads, Retributors, or Scions.

Hellebore wrote:Another option is to distinguish APMOD from each other based on their scale.
ie

Anti Infantry (AI only applies modifiers to infantry)
Anti tank (AT applies to tanks, ignores infantry armour entirely)
Anti Materiel (AM applies to superheavies, ignores tanks and infantry)


That tiered system gives you a combination of all or nothing - appropriate for larger weapons, while also allowing you to scale your modifiers inside the unit types.

You can also have special rules on units like a land raider being a superheavy for armour purpses, or terminators being tanks for armour purposes.

It also means you don't ahve to push saves on units up if tanks ignore AI modifiers entirely you are able to have lower saves that are only affected by AT weapons.

Combine this with a limited AP range of -1 to -3, then you get a better balance as well.

ie ap-3 AI weapons have no effect on tanks at all, but give a marine a 6+ save. While a plasma gun might be -2 AT and a melta -3 AT. Both ignore infantry armour, but apply a limited save mod to tanks.

And so on.

I'm not 100% sure that having it just ignore the armor of units in a lower "armor class" is a very good idea and I'm also not sure if having infantry count as a vehicle for the purposes of AP is a good idea either, but if AP is truly a problem, I think this is an incredibly elegant solution. Obviously it would involve a lot of work because you'd need to go over every weapon profile in the game, but it's something that makes intuitive sense without adding too much in the way of rules.

I'd love to hear some AP values for currently existing weapons beyond the two you've given in the system. I'd also say that you should call the top tier of weapon AP value "Titan Killer" because 1) it sounds cooler, 2) it makes it obvious that this is a gun that's supposed to take down very large targets much better than "Anti-Material" which could mean anything from anti-light armor or large non-armored targets to what you're currently using it as which is anti-titan.

 catbarf wrote:

Quasistellar wrote:
Or they're both bad, and you are playing some really weird one-downsmanship game. Because you're mad.

Calling him mad because he used a comparison to point out that your Hellblasters really aren't as fragile as you seem to think they are is pretty childish.

The idea that a fragile unit has to be capable of reliably making its points back in one round of shooting is questionable to begin with. The challenge with a glass hammer or deep-striking unit is figuring out how you can maximize its effectiveness and survive long enough to earn its keep. If they can just deploy anywhere from DS or waltz out from behind cover and kill their own value in one attack, there's no skill involved; the game just plays on autopilot.

And frankly, when said unit is T4/W2/3+ (with innate AP-1 no less), it's a lot easier to keep them alive to shoot again than a unit like Lootas, Scourges, Special Weapons Squads, Retributors, or Scions.

But glass hammer type units generaly aren't glass hammer in the game terms at all. Whole factions aren't. Something like Eldar or DE are suppose to be fast, but fragil. But with the way the game works, they just destroy your assets from the other side of the table often ignoring a ton of defence rules, especialy regular saves. While Marines are more resilient then Lootas, Scourges, Special Weapons Squads, Retributors, or Scions. It is a bad comperation, because of out of the units mentioned non , aside for retributors, are actualy used. And retributors when they were actualy top tier, they were doing suicide runs with double cherub poping, and with full expectation to die next turn. The problem with the marine stat line, is that unlike other armies, marines actualy have their core armies made out of stuff with that stat line. While for other armies the basic "trooper" is something like a MC or vehicle of some sort. What is worse this does end with marine players trying to do the same and having multiple dreadnoughts, nemezis knights etc in their armies and as few actual marines as possible. Mostly because of how ineffcient point wise, prior AoC, meq were.

Karol wrote:


But glass hammer type units generaly aren't glass hammer in the game terms at all. Whole factions aren't. Something like Eldar or DE are suppose to be fast, but fragil. But with the way the game works, they just destroy your assets from the other side of the table often ignoring a ton of defence rules, especialy regular saves. While Marines are more resilient then Lootas, Scourges, Special Weapons Squads, Retributors, or Scions. It is a bad comperation, because of out of the units mentioned non , aside for retributors, are actualy used. And retributors when they were actualy top tier, they were doing suicide runs with double cherub poping, and with full expectation to die next turn. The problem with the marine stat line, is that unlike other armies, marines actualy have their core armies made out of stuff with that stat line. While for other armies the basic "trooper" is something like a MC or vehicle of some sort. What is worse this does end with marine players trying to do the same and having multiple dreadnoughts, nemezis knights etc in their armies and as few actual marines as possible. Mostly because of how ineffcient point wise, prior AoC, meq were.

Basic Ork models taken atm are Boyz type. Kommandos, Boyz, Beastboyz, Burna boyz (god knows why) and Tankbustas. The day of Speed WAAAGH is basically dead, especially after GW just nerfed Freebootas into the ground and slapped everybody with the 6CP rule. So no, Marines are not alone with their models sharing a basic statline.

As far as none of those units being taken, yeah, but is it because the unit is inherently weak or lacks durability? or is it because the codex has better options? For Orkz, its ironically both problems, they are weak (Auto-cannons aren't scary) and fragile as all hell. In the case of the hellblasters its because there are BETTER options which put out more dmg.