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 mx
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan




Mexico

Dice rolls are multiplicative, order doesn't really matter.

A 3+ to hit with a 4+ to wound is the same as a 4+ to hit with a 3+ to wound. Both are 0.1667 chance to get to the saving phase.

Nowadays to hit is the best characteristics because it is damn hard to waste it. Meanwhile extra strength or extra SV modifiers can be wasted.

But with the old AP system, its nature to either to bypass the entire saving part or do nothing often made it either the strongest or weakest characteristic and the saving calculation the strongest part of the whole sequence.

This also made invulnerable saves, cover and cover ignoring rules extremely powerful. It also made AP modifiers extremely rare because a weapon could jump entire categories just by a small difference in AP.
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

For the most part, I didn't mind the old AP system. Though Hellbore raises a good point:

 Hellebore wrote:

A 5+ save already incorporates it's lack of protection into its low value, AP5 is just additional punishment for no good reason.


In any case, I think implementation was the real issue - especially in 6th-7th, when some armies could put out ridiculous amounts of AP2-3 firepower, whilst others didn't have even a single AP2 melee weapon to their name.

That said, modifiers have been little better in terms of implementation.

For example, if meltas and the like are going to have very high AP, the obvious thing would be to give vehicles very good armour saves (e.g. 1+) so that most other weapons still leave them with 3+ saves at worst. That way, meltas serve a useful function in reliably damaging vehicles, which most other weapons (with significantly lower AP) will struggle to efficiently grind down.

Instead, GW gave most vehicles weak armour saves and then handed out invulnerable saves to vehicles like candy.

 blood reaper wrote:
I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.



 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





We still use the old AP system, and it works fine with a couple mods. We also still use cover saves.

Shooting into or through terrain is -1 to hit, so all models benefit for having cover.

A terrain's cover save eventually defeats AP weapons of a higher value. So a forest section that provides a 5+ cover save stops an ork's AP6 shoota from going through it. It can go into models in cover there, but not past.

We still use 4th Ed's principle of cover stopping all fire after two pieces of area terrain (exceptions: sniper weapons & railguns). Overall we find the old system works pretty well.

On a side note, we still have 1 wound marines but they do get a 6+ invulnerable save which mitigates their vulnerability to low AP weaponry somewhat.

   
Made in gb
Witch Hunter in the Shadows





 Hellebore wrote:
A 5+ save already incorporates it's lack of protection into its low value, AP5 is just additional punishment for no good reason.
In the context of early oldhammer the AP5 weapons were notably the domain of elite units like marines, crons, eldar, stormtroopers, etc.
Whereas horde units like guard, orks, gaunts were firing AP6 or AP- and would grant saves to their peer opponents.
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut





A.T. wrote:
 Hellebore wrote:
A 5+ save already incorporates it's lack of protection into its low value, AP5 is just additional punishment for no good reason.
In the context of early oldhammer the AP5 weapons were notably the domain of elite units like marines, crons, eldar, stormtroopers, etc.
Whereas horde units like guard, orks, gaunts were firing AP6 or AP- and would grant saves to their peer opponents.


That's not really relevant to the mechanic though. Armour was a form of protection, having half your factions ignore the armour of half your other factions in the name of being 'elite' is terrible design.

They had plenty of other means of showing their eliteness - BS WS, armour, Ld. All show eliteness.

The game would have been much better if they dropped AP entirely. Trying playing 3rd ed with no AP, relying on Strength and shots to kill things. 5+ saves kill your opponents by their fail rate, you don't need to ignore them for them to fail.

   
Made in gb
Witch Hunter in the Shadows





 Hellebore wrote:
That's not really relevant to the mechanic though. Armour was a form of protection, having half your factions ignore the armour of half your other factions in the name of being 'elite' is terrible design.
It makes them better against chaff units without improving their performance against other elite units.

The drawback of save modifiers is that if you want to make your elite units better able to blow through flak armour or the like you also make them better against power armour - see 2nd editions anti-marine flamethrowers and the like.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2025/01/09 23:52:27


 
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut





A.T. wrote:
 Hellebore wrote:
That's not really relevant to the mechanic though. Armour was a form of protection, having half your factions ignore the armour of half your other factions in the name of being 'elite' is terrible design.
It makes them better against chaff units without improve their performance against other elite units.

The drawback of save modifiers is that if you want to make your elite units better able to blow through flak armour or the like you also make them better against power armour - see 2nd editions anti-marine flamethrowers and the like.


My point is that you don't need to 'blow through' flak armour when it fails 2/3rds of the time anyway. It's success rate already incorporates being chaff and not surviving taking hits. 12 wounds on guardsmen sees all 12 die from AP5, but still 8 die from AP-. That's not nothing but it's certainly not a fun experience when you have nothing left, as marine players know when they are on the receiving end of AP2 shots.

It's literally only declared a problem when Marines suffer the same experience of not getting a save as other armies, when the players of those other armies still have to put up with it.



For a quick 3rd ed AP patch try this - ignore AP in the game*. Anything that inflicts instant death ignores armour. Has an equal impact across all armies, but the fact that elite armies are tougher or have better saves makes them stand out from chaff units. AP only affected infantry models so this has no real impact on vehicles.

*if you really want to reflect the high AP end of the system, you can have the following - AP1/2 weapons automatically wound regardless of toughness. Unless they cause ID you still get a save, you just remove the 1/6 chance most AP1/2 weapons have of failing to wound.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2025/01/09 23:36:06


   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot





Minnesota

 Insectum7 wrote:
^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.

That was true but then that's the same dynamic from the other direction. If my entire army is 6+ Slugga Boys the AP of your weapons is now irrelevant; there's no "good" target for power weapons or plasma guns and I've therefore wasted all of the points that you've spent on those just by building my list like that.

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.

That's true but the game is made more complex by it still being one factor; if every possible target has the same save it just ceases to be one. Or at least it turns into a pure list-building decision. Putting plasma guns in your list against Deathwing is a good strategy, but once the game begins plasma guns are just a universally stronger weapon against everyone, not a weapon with a specialized role against some specific targets that you need to engage them with. Whereas if you're playing against Orks with a squad of Meganobs then getting your plasma guns into range of them (rather than Sluggas) is now important.


 Hellebore wrote:
My point is that you don't need to 'blow through' flak armour when it fails 2/3rds of the time anyway. It's success rate already incorporates being chaff and not surviving taking hits. 12 wounds on guardsmen sees all 12 die from AP5, but still 8 die from AP-. That's not nothing but it's certainly not a fun experience when you have nothing left, as marine players know when they are on the receiving end of AP2 shots.

It's literally only declared a problem when Marines suffer the same experience of not getting a save as other armies, when the players of those other armies still have to put up with it.

Ironic when the whole basis for saves rolled by the defender is to let the other player feel like a participant. It would be faster to just have the attacker roll them. (Also why they would hand out 5+ invuls by default to most HQ choices.)

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2025/01/10 00:29:18


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 gb
Witch Hunter in the Shadows





 Hellebore wrote:
12 wounds on guardsmen sees all 12 die from AP5, but still 8 die from AP-. That's not nothing but it's certainly not a fun experience.
12 wounds?

27 shots if they are standing outside of cover. 41 shots in cover or otherwise getting to roll their armour save. 300+ points of marines to kill 60 points of guard.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






 Orkeosaurus wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
^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.

That was true but then that's the same dynamic from the other direction. If my entire army is 6+ Slugga Boys the AP of your weapons is now irrelevant; there's no "good" target for power weapons or plasma guns and I've therefore wasted all of the points that you've spent on those just by building my list like that.

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.

That's true but the game is made more complex by it still being one factor; if every possible target has the same save it just ceases to be one. Or at least it turns into a pure list-building decision. Putting plasma guns in your list against Deathwing is a good strategy, but once the game begins plasma guns are just a universally stronger weapon against everyone, not a weapon with a specialized role against some specific targets that you need to engage them with. Whereas if you're playing against Orks with a squad of Meganobs then getting your plasma guns into range of them (rather than Sluggas) is now important.

I agree that those are all factors that create decision points for the game, but I'd counter it by suggesting that choosing to skew your list by save value, or trying to architect into your list methods of mitigating the potential for skew, those are both other rewarding (imo) decision making points of the game.

The proposition to force armies into fielding different save brackets can actually cut down on the decision making potential, since now multiple armies will become more homogenous when considered as a whole.

I also think one of the benefits of the FOC was to use as a lever to adjust the potential for skew on a per-army basis.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2025/01/10 02:20:59


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
Longtime Dakkanaut





A.T. wrote:
 Hellebore wrote:
12 wounds on guardsmen sees all 12 die from AP5, but still 8 die from AP-. That's not nothing but it's certainly not a fun experience.
12 wounds?

27 shots if they are standing outside of cover. 41 shots in cover or otherwise getting to roll their armour save. 300+ points of marines to kill 60 points of guard.


Sure but by that argument starcannon spam is not a problem because it also costs a fortune to kill marines - 5 guardians + starcannon = 90pts x 6 troops for 540pts to generate 12 shots at BS4+ S6, so hitting 6 times, wounding 5 times.

That's 540pts to kill 75pts of marines.

Or 3 warwalkers at 300pts with twin starcannons each, same deal, 300pts to kill 75pts of marines. MSU spam costs almost 2x as much as a single WW unit, but it was historically considered the most problematic.



Again, this is only ever seen through the lens of marines losing their armour as a problem, when everyone else just had to deal with losing their armour as par for the course. If you don't like marines losing their armour then you should understand why no one else enjoyed being on the receiving end of a game where 95% of the weapons ignored your armour from the get go.

And why the save itself offered enough failure that AP really didn't need to be a thing.


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2025/01/10 02:40:33


   
Made in us
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard





 Hellebore wrote:

Again, this is only ever seen through the lens of marines losing their armour as a problem, when everyone else just had to deal with losing their armour as par for the course. If you don't like marines losing their armour then you should understand why no one else enjoyed being on the receiving end of a game where 95% of the weapons ignored your armour from the get go.

And why the save itself offered enough failure that AP really didn't need to be a thing.

This is the problem with taking everything separately. Marines losing their save is a problem because Marines are built and priced around that save. Armies that get next to no save are built and priced around that mechanic. Though that's another example of implementation more than system framework. The difference between AP5 and -2 Armor Pen for an army built on 5+ isn't much. The implementation problem was how common AP5 was. The implementation problem was how common AP3 became. The systemic problem was how little 2+ cared about AP3.

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





Krieg! What a hole...

I personally didn't mind losing my armor save, you just got used to it, at least I did on my Death Korps army.

It did highlight how much of a jump 4+ was, however, when AP 5 was *this* common. My Krieg's elites always surprised me with how more survivable they felt, same with the Scions.

This is, of course, not taking cover into account, but to me it felt like the jump from 5+ to 4+ was much more than just a better roll

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
Longtime Dakkanaut





Breton wrote:
 Hellebore wrote:

Again, this is only ever seen through the lens of marines losing their armour as a problem, when everyone else just had to deal with losing their armour as par for the course. If you don't like marines losing their armour then you should understand why no one else enjoyed being on the receiving end of a game where 95% of the weapons ignored your armour from the get go.

And why the save itself offered enough failure that AP really didn't need to be a thing.

This is the problem with taking everything separately. Marines losing their save is a problem because Marines are built and priced around that save. Armies that get next to no save are built and priced around that mechanic. Though that's another example of implementation more than system framework. The difference between AP5 and -2 Armor Pen for an army built on 5+ isn't much. The implementation problem was how common AP5 was. The implementation problem was how common AP3 became. The systemic problem was how little 2+ cared about AP3.


But by that logic, armies that have weapons that ignore marine armour are also built and priced with those, so there's no problem with ignoring them. IE the argument that 'everything was balanced by points' applies to everything and thus any argument is negated.

And if starcannons are unbalanced because they weren't pointed correctly because marines lost their saves too much, well I have a bone to pick with the idea that a marine is pointed correctly when it costs only 7pts more than a guardian and has every stat improved....



The inherent problem was the system was a binary one and that included high value saves. If an army can maximise its ability to ignore their opponent's saves, it doesn't matter what that save is. So either you artificially constrain APs so that each army can confidently face exactly the ratio of ignoring saves to taking them, or you remove the system. Because there is no way to balance 'elite armour that costs points but can be ignored' from 'crap armour that's cheap and is ignored alot' without applying some kind of constraint.

IE marines will only ever be able to face an enemy that can ignore 20% of their saves, guard 40%. That is built into their cost.


Or to put it another way, the nature of the AP system makes it impossible to actually balance with points - AP4 is 100% valuable against Sv4+ and 0% valuable against Sv3+. To balance these you would need different points values depending on the army you fight, because of how effective that weapon is against it. This is true for all rules to an extent but is extremely stark with binary choices. Against marines AP5 is worth nothing, against guard it's highly valuable. But you don't balance AP5 with points as if their enemy was always guard, because marines would be too expensive. A tactical marine might be worth 15pts against other marines but 18pts against guard because of how effective their gun is at killing them.

This is why, whether it's good or not, ASM are a superior way to go in comparison between the two because they allow for better points balance due to the sliding scale.




   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

AP-1 increases damage by 20% against a 6+.
It increases damage by 100% against a 2+.

That’s not balanced either.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut





 JNAProductions wrote:
AP-1 increases damage by 20% against a 6+.
It increases damage by 100% against a 2+.

That’s not balanced either.


12 wounds against 6+ save with -1ASM is 12 wounds, vs 10 without. 12 wounds against 2+ save with -1ASM is 4 wounds vs 2 without. The amount of damage increased linearly, the % is entirely relative. What is the importance of the relative percentage? Each unit lost 2 additional wounds beyond what they would have normally.

I'd be fascinated to see a set of rules that enable you to model everything in relative percentages, rather than flat lines.... that's not really how those numbers work unless you're using normalising curves.

And who said the effect had to be equal - S8 doesn't scale linearly against T4-7 either. We're talking points cost balance. In that instance, the sliding scale of effectiveness means each pip of armour increase doesn't cost a linear amount, but reduces equal to the effectiveness.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2025/01/10 05:01:37


   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






 Hellebore wrote:
A tactical marine might be worth 15pts against other marines but 18pts against guard because of how effective their gun is at killing them.


You're going to find this type of "imbalance" exists regardless of your AP system, especially as units with more specialized roles are under scrutiny. Howling Banshees are going to be worth more points against Terminators in 2nd ed (using the Sv mod system), than against Guardsmen, right?

And if this sort of skewed comparison isn't happening, you've gone and designed some pretty bland unit relationships, imo.


Re: "I have a bone to pick with the idea that a marine is pointed correctly when it costs only 7pts more than a guardian and has every stat improved...." There's a point in 3rd, tactically, where those naked 8 point models definitely outshine the naked 15 point Marines, and it's in a close range firefight where the units have to move to engage each other, particularly if there's cover involved. But also those Guardians could bring a Starcannon and those Marine players will start throwing hissy fits.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2025/01/10 05:45:25


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
Longtime Dakkanaut





Totally agree, it's just that scaled binary systems like ap are worse for it so the imbalance is more obvious.


   
Made in us
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard





 Hellebore wrote:
Breton wrote:
 Hellebore wrote:

Again, this is only ever seen through the lens of marines losing their armour as a problem, when everyone else just had to deal with losing their armour as par for the course. If you don't like marines losing their armour then you should understand why no one else enjoyed being on the receiving end of a game where 95% of the weapons ignored your armour from the get go.

And why the save itself offered enough failure that AP really didn't need to be a thing.

This is the problem with taking everything separately. Marines losing their save is a problem because Marines are built and priced around that save. Armies that get next to no save are built and priced around that mechanic. Though that's another example of implementation more than system framework. The difference between AP5 and -2 Armor Pen for an army built on 5+ isn't much. The implementation problem was how common AP5 was. The implementation problem was how common AP3 became. The systemic problem was how little 2+ cared about AP3.


But by that logic, armies that have weapons that ignore marine armour are also built and priced with those, so there's no problem with ignoring them. IE the argument that 'everything was balanced by points' applies to everything and thus any argument is negated.
Armies, not units. It wasn't the Star Cannon, and it wasn't the Missile Launcher. It was the Star Cannons, and the missile launchers, and the this and the that. Same as AP5 everywhere with a much shorter road to the tipping point. Marines aren't really priced to lose 10+ models a turn - on the other hand Orks and Guard are somewhat priced to lose 20ish models a turn.

And if starcannons are unbalanced because they weren't pointed correctly because marines lost their saves too much, well I have a bone to pick with the idea that a marine is pointed correctly when it costs only 7pts more than a guardian and has every stat improved....



The inherent problem was the system was a binary one and that included high value saves. If an army can maximise its ability to ignore their opponent's saves, it doesn't matter what that save is. So either you artificially constrain APs so that each army can confidently face exactly the ratio of ignoring saves to taking them, or you remove the system. Because there is no way to balance 'elite armour that costs points but can be ignored' from 'crap armour that's cheap and is ignored alot' without applying some kind of constraint.

IE marines will only ever be able to face an enemy that can ignore 20% of their saves, guard 40%. That is built into their cost.


Or to put it another way, the nature of the AP system makes it impossible to actually balance with points - AP4 is 100% valuable against Sv4+ and 0% valuable against Sv3+. To balance these you would need different points values depending on the army you fight, because of how effective that weapon is against it. This is true for all rules to an extent but is extremely stark with binary choices. Against marines AP5 is worth nothing, against guard it's highly valuable. But you don't balance AP5 with points as if their enemy was always guard, because marines would be too expensive. A tactical marine might be worth 15pts against other marines but 18pts against guard because of how effective their gun is at killing them.

This is why, whether it's good or not, ASM are a superior way to go in comparison between the two because they allow for better points balance due to the sliding scale.


Even the current system is flawed - They've learned a little (Just about everything is less AP than it used to be Krak went from AP3 to -2 AKA AP5. Plasma is also -2/-3 vs AP2. Even the Lascannon went from AP2 to -3. Bolters are -, but so are Lasguns. Bolt Rifles are -1 but its still too easy to use "Anti-Tank" as anti-Infantry. Plus they didn't really make the man-portable anti-tank anti-tanky enough. Combine that with too much emphasis on AP vs To Hit and/or To Wound and that's the flaw. Man Portable Anti-Tank should absolutely immolate a tank. It should also miss that single solitary dude over there by a country mile.

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




Mexico

 Insectum7 wrote:

I agree that those are all factors that create decision points for the game, but I'd counter it by suggesting that choosing to skew your list by save value, or trying to architect into your list methods of mitigating the potential for skew, those are both other rewarding (imo) decision making points of the game.

The proposition to force armies into fielding different save brackets can actually cut down on the decision making potential, since now multiple armies will become more homogenous when considered as a whole.

I also think one of the benefits of the FOC was to use as a lever to adjust the potential for skew on a per-army basis.


Homogeneity tends to increase decision making potential. Chess has more possible moves than there are atoms in the universe.

But that aside, I don't believe skew has ever been considered rewarding decision potential. Powerful sure, but rewarding? Nah.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






 Tyran wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:

I agree that those are all factors that create decision points for the game, but I'd counter it by suggesting that choosing to skew your list by save value, or trying to architect into your list methods of mitigating the potential for skew, those are both other rewarding (imo) decision making points of the game.

The proposition to force armies into fielding different save brackets can actually cut down on the decision making potential, since now multiple armies will become more homogenous when considered as a whole.

I also think one of the benefits of the FOC was to use as a lever to adjust the potential for skew on a per-army basis.


Homogeneity tends to increase decision making potential. Chess has more possible moves than there are atoms in the universe.

But that aside, I don't believe skew has ever been considered rewarding decision potential. Powerful sure, but rewarding? Nah.
I don't follow with the chess example. 40k will have more possibilities than chess because it has more variables.

I definitely have seen people enjoy their skew armies. And I've definitely enjoyed playing against them as they can offer a fresh or unexpected challenge. I recall fondly a player who showed up at our club with a 140+ model Ork army that was hard as **** to contend with, but trying to deal with it was a blast.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Hellebore wrote:
Totally agree, it's just that scaled binary systems like ap are worse for it so the imbalance is more obvious.


I genuinely think that the balance is actually more subtle.

Which sounds like a flippant or obnoxious thing to say, but I think it's actually the case.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2025/01/10 07:21:45


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 gb
Witch Hunter in the Shadows





 Hellebore wrote:
Sure but by that argument starcannon spam is not a problem because it also costs a fortune to kill marines
Marines shooting guardsmen with bolters were doing so trying to push through a screen to get to a meaningful target after spending one or more turns getting into rapid fire range, and frankly even at AP5 you were almost always better off charging just because of how inefficient it was to chew through the guardsmen with small arms.

Two 3e war walkers could on average take out an entire 3e terminator squad with their first shots on turn 1. Two units of two would wipe an entire ten man assault, devastator, or tactical squad off the board upgrades and all if they weren't in cover.

And to be fair that wasn't all that far off the target lethality of 3e - GWs initial solution wasn't to buff power armour or nerf eldar, just to give terminators a 5++ to curb the extreme edge cases of efficiency. Units were supposed to die when shot at with the right weapon and trade inefficiently when shot at with the wrong weapon.
The starcannon was just too efficient at the end of the day. Same with the old 6pt plasma guns.
   
Made in au
Fresh-Faced New User




Breton wrote:
Bolt Rifles are -1 but its still too easy to use "Anti-Tank" as anti-Infantry. Plus they didn't really make the man-portable anti-tank anti-tanky enough. Combine that with too much emphasis on AP vs To Hit and/or To Wound and that's the flaw. Man Portable Anti-Tank should absolutely immolate a tank. It should also miss that single solitary dude over there by a country mile.

Man portable anti-tank should obliterate infantry. An anti-tank rocket or missile is way more effective against infantry than it is against a tank. The only thing acting in the infantry's favour is how dispersed they are. I've seen way too many body parts flying through the air to convince me otherwise.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 Hellebore wrote:
A.T. wrote:
 Hellebore wrote:
A 5+ save already incorporates it's lack of protection into its low value, AP5 is just additional punishment for no good reason.
In the context of early oldhammer the AP5 weapons were notably the domain of elite units like marines, crons, eldar, stormtroopers, etc.
Whereas horde units like guard, orks, gaunts were firing AP6 or AP- and would grant saves to their peer opponents.


That's not really relevant to the mechanic though. Armour was a form of protection, having half your factions ignore the armour of half your other factions in the name of being 'elite' is terrible design.

They had plenty of other means of showing their eliteness - BS WS, armour, Ld. All show eliteness.

The game would have been much better if they dropped AP entirely. Trying playing 3rd ed with no AP, relying on Strength and shots to kill things. 5+ saves kill your opponents by their fail rate, you don't need to ignore them for them to fail.

I think what you might be circling with this discussion and with your thread in Proposed Rules is that there's kind of a bit of redundancy between the to-wound roll and the save roll. They're both kind of trying to represent how likely a given hit is to do meaningful damage, with armor being a little bit more specific in what exactly it represents. I could see a world where we do something like:

* Get rid of armor saves. Invulns and such would probably still exist but would be the exception rather than the norm.
* The Save stat becomes the Armor stat and is usually a value between 0 and 2. So wyches and gaunts have a 0. Marines probably have a 1. Termies probably have a 2. This number is what you subtract from Wound rolls made against the unit. So an S4 bolter shooting at a marine (T4) would normally need a 4+ to wound. But Armored 1 makes that a 5+ instead.
* AP sticks around but also generally has a value between 0 and 2. AP reduces the value of a target's Armored rule. So an Ineferno Bolter (S4, AP1) would wound that a marine on a 4+. And S4 AP2 weapon would *also* wound a marine on a 4+ because it's just reducing the value of the Armor stat; armor-piercing rounds aren't more effective against guys wearing t-shirts just because they punch through those literal shirts more easily.
* Then we increase Wounds on everything game-wide to compensate for the new math.

So the intended end result is that you get rid of some of the quirky math that comes with the AP system(s), reduce rolling, and you'll generally be doing a more steady stream of damage into target units. That is, every successful wound roll will be removing hit points; you'll just have more hitpoints to get through. Which I feel is pretty consistent with how armor is often described in 40k; lasguns slowly chipping away at ceramite and degrading the protection it offers until they can finally start hitting something vital (removing the last hitpoint.)


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
Mysterious Techpriest







You could change things to a very cinematic feel, by returning the old AV of vehicles and applying them to everyone, this also removes toughness (You can give multiple wounds to units to show toughness).

The weakest armor on a vehicle was 10, so you could male a Terminator 9, which meant a bolter needs to roll a 5 to glance, 6 to Penetrate.

Lasguns need 6s to glance.

Glancing Hits cause 1 wound, Direct Hits cause 2.

Weapons that typically had very powerful AP, now have rending.

 BorderCountess wrote:
Just because you're doing something right doesn't necessarily mean you know what you're doing...
Warhammer 40k Poetry(Updated Frequently)メカ
SamusDrake wrote:
If unpainted models are good enough for Zeus, then they're good enough for me.
 
   
Made in kw
Dakka Veteran




A.T. wrote:
 Hellebore wrote:
Sure but by that argument starcannon spam is not a problem because it also costs a fortune to kill marines
Marines shooting guardsmen with bolters were doing so trying to push through a screen to get to a meaningful target after spending one or more turns getting into rapid fire range, and frankly even at AP5 you were almost always better off charging just because of how inefficient it was to chew through the guardsmen with small arms.

Two 3e war walkers could on average take out an entire 3e terminator squad with their first shots on turn 1. Two units of two would wipe an entire ten man assault, devastator, or tactical squad off the board upgrades and all if they weren't in cover.

And to be fair that wasn't all that far off the target lethality of 3e - GWs initial solution wasn't to buff power armour or nerf eldar, just to give terminators a 5++ to curb the extreme edge cases of efficiency. Units were supposed to die when shot at with the right weapon and trade inefficiently when shot at with the wrong weapon.
The starcannon was just too efficient at the end of the day. Same with the old 6pt plasma guns.


Appropriately GW’s solution on both the starcannons end and the terminators end was ultimately the same - reduce damage by 1/3 (5++ for terminators, going from 3 to 2 shots for starcannons).
   
Made in us
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard





Oktoglokk wrote:
Breton wrote:
Bolt Rifles are -1 but its still too easy to use "Anti-Tank" as anti-Infantry. Plus they didn't really make the man-portable anti-tank anti-tanky enough. Combine that with too much emphasis on AP vs To Hit and/or To Wound and that's the flaw. Man Portable Anti-Tank should absolutely immolate a tank. It should also miss that single solitary dude over there by a country mile.

Man portable anti-tank should obliterate infantry. An anti-tank rocket or missile is way more effective against infantry than it is against a tank. The only thing acting in the infantry's favour is how dispersed they are. I've seen way too many body parts flying through the air to convince me otherwise.

Pretty sure that's part of what I just said? Man Portable Anti-Tank doesn't really immolate a tank anymore. Krak, Melta and so on until you get to Lascanon are probable too weak. But at the same time shooting the big guns at the little dude should miss by a country mile?

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 Lathe Biosas wrote:
You could change things to a very cinematic feel, by returning the old AV of vehicles and applying them to everyone, this also removes toughness (You can give multiple wounds to units to show toughness).

The weakest armor on a vehicle was 10, so you could male a Terminator 9, which meant a bolter needs to roll a 5 to glance, 6 to Penetrate.

Lasguns need 6s to glance.

Glancing Hits cause 1 wound, Direct Hits cause 2.

Weapons that typically had very powerful AP, now have rending.

Well, that would mean rending is no longer ever useful against the vast majority of non-monster/vehicle units. Assuming a lasgun was still something like strength 3, you'd be able to wound up to T8 without needing rend. But assuming we're talking about bringing back a single AV value per datasheet and not like, armor facings, this would essentially just be a new to-wound chart without the ability to have a given strength wound multiple T values on the same number. That is, S4 would always be better at wounding T5 than T6, for better or worse.

Not necessarily shutting the idea down, but it's kind of just an alternate to-wound chart. Not sure it really addresses the AP issue at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breton wrote:
Oktoglokk wrote:
Breton wrote:
Bolt Rifles are -1 but its still too easy to use "Anti-Tank" as anti-Infantry. Plus they didn't really make the man-portable anti-tank anti-tanky enough. Combine that with too much emphasis on AP vs To Hit and/or To Wound and that's the flaw. Man Portable Anti-Tank should absolutely immolate a tank. It should also miss that single solitary dude over there by a country mile.

Man portable anti-tank should obliterate infantry. An anti-tank rocket or missile is way more effective against infantry than it is against a tank. The only thing acting in the infantry's favour is how dispersed they are. I've seen way too many body parts flying through the air to convince me otherwise.

Pretty sure that's part of what I just said? Man Portable Anti-Tank doesn't really immolate a tank anymore. Krak, Melta and so on until you get to Lascanon are probable too weak. But at the same time shooting the big guns at the little dude should miss by a country mile?


I don't think we need to make meltaguns and lascannons particularly bad at hitting the little dudes. The limitation there is usually just rate of fire. A meltagun pointed at a guardsman will vaporize that guardsman effortlessly. But you've "wasted" your weapon slot or (in previous editions) your army points to kill a single guardsman instead of pointing that gun at a tank or taking a different gun that would have killed several guardsmen.

But I definitely agree that meltaguns and such should be better at hurting vehicles. If GW *really* wants to avoid wargear costs, they could just change the melta rule to a strength boost or to-wound bonus instead of a damage boost. I'd be okay with meltaguns not one-shotting a rhino so long as they're able to *consistently hurt* the rhino. Like, an S12 D3 meltagun would be pretty okay.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2025/01/10 17:49:59



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 ca
Stalwart Tribune




Canada,eh

Fundamentally flawed all or nothing save system, big time. AP3 or better were the only meaningful weapon APs. You could get shot with a Multimelta BUT you were behind a piece of wood so you get a 4+ save, wtf? So my gun can melt through tanks but your marine happens to be behind some waving grass giving it a 4+ save ignoring your weapons profile that you paid for. With it being modifier based, cover starts being able to be factored in and the granularity gave more space for play. I'll never go back to the lazy feels bad of that all or nothing system.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2025/01/10 18:22:45





I am Blue/White
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
<small>Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.</small>

I'm both orderly and rational. I value control, information, and order. I love structure and hierarchy, and will actively use whatever power or knowledge I have to maintain it. At best, I am lawful and insightful; at worst, I am bureaucratic and tyrannical.


1000pt Skitari Legion 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 Gibblets wrote:
Fundamentally flawed all or nothing save system, big time. AP3 or better were the only meaningful weapon APs. You could get shot with a Multimelta BUT you were behind a piece of wood so you get a 4+ save, wtf? So my gun can melt through tanks but your marine happens to be behind some waving grass giving it a 4+ save ignoring your weapons profile that you paid for. With it being modifier based, cover starts being able to be factored in and the granularity gave more space for play. I'll never go back to the lazy feels bad of that all or nothing system.


Well, to play devil's advocate, cover saves were kind of implied to be largely about making it harder to draw a bead on your target. So it's not that the meltagun couldn't get through a tree. It's that your target dashed behind a tree as you pulled the trigger, but you didn't realize he'd actually dived into some bushes while he was out of your line of sight. So the tree is vaporized, and the marine would have been as well... if he were still standing there. That's why flamers ignored cover saves back in the day. The flames were hitting the tree, the space behind the tree, and the bushes near the tree all at once.

The thing that always got me about the old AP system was that good AP just wasn't even a factor if it wasn't good *enough* AP. So a krak missile (AP3) can cut through power armor like a knife through warm butter. But all that armor piercing power is exactly as effective as a lasgun or a cultist's naked fist agains slightly thicker/sturdier power armor (artificer armor, 2+). And a heavy flamer was so devastating (AP4) that dire avengers (Sv4+) may as well not be wearing armor at all, but their striking scorpion friends (sv3+) have a good chance of being completely unscathed by it.

It just feels better in general to know that the AP you're paying for is being factored into the equation. Ditto your armor saves. Maybe an AP-2 weapon isn't completely bypassing marine armor, but it's getting through a lot more easily than some random cultist punch would be. And conversely, that marine may not be getting his full 3+ save vs that AP-2 weapon, but he's getting a much better save than a gaunt would be. One player paid for good AP, and it's doing something. The other player paid for good armor, and it's doing something.


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.
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: