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.

It bothers me that a lot of threads I have read about buffing certain things mention "Just make it Ap6 to make it (----)"

"Chainswords should be AP6" etc etc etc.

This suggestion while sounding like a balanced idea is in fact the opposite. Only a handful of armies even have units that have Armor 6, most of those units are already rated as sub par for this shooting edition but everyone seems to think that denying them an armor save at all some how makes the weapons in question better when it only effects the weakest troops in the game.

Do SM's really need AP6 Chainswords to kill ork boyz or Imperial Guardsmen?


In the end I think that GW needs to rebalance the entire game. anyway

MorkorpossiblyGork wrote:
It bothers me that a lot of threads I have read about buffing certain things mention "Just make it Ap6 to make it (----)"

"Chainswords should be AP6" etc etc etc.

This suggestion while sounding like a balanced idea is in fact the opposite. Only a handful of armies even have units that have Armor 6, most of those units are already rated as sub par for this shooting edition but everyone seems to think that denying them an armor save at all some how makes the weapons in question better when it only effects the weakest troops in the game.

Do SM's really need AP6 Chainswords to kill ork boyz or Imperial Guardsmen?


In the end I think that GW needs to rebalance the entire game. anyway

Well to be technical guardsmen have armor 5 so they would still get the save.

No save is significantly worse then a 6+ save.

Any time I make an attempt to do anything to the core rules all-or-nothing AP is the first to go.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lance845 wrote:
No save is significantly worse then a 6+ save.

The number of situations where you get a 6+ save is so small that no save is functionally identical to a 6+ save, unless you happen to be getting into combat with troops that don't have special melee weapons on a reliable basis (unlikely, with no armour against all the bullets coming your way).

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Any time I make an attempt to do anything to the core rules all-or-nothing AP is the first to go.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lance845 wrote:
No save is significantly worse then a 6+ save.

The number of situations where you get a 6+ save is so small that no save is functionally identical to a 6+ save, unless you happen to be getting into combat with troops that don't have special melee weapons on a reliable basis (unlikely, with no armour against all the bullets coming your way).

Well my primary army is nids and some of my very best guns are devourers (regular or brain leach) decent to good str with a high volume of shots and no AP at all. I am used to everyone getting their saves all the time.

Dont knock the 6+ save. I buy Guardian Drones on my Striker Firewarriors for a 6+ invul and you'd be surprised how many saves i've made lol

I admit its weird chainswords dont have a decent AP but i think marines would get a bit...too powerful in melee if they gave them a reasonable AP. Giving them Ap6 is more of a shot in the foot to Gaunts/Boyz/Nobz, which really DONT need more bullet holes in their foot, than it is a help to marines.

 Vineheart01 wrote:
Dont knock the 6+ save. I buy Guardian Drones on my Striker Firewarriors for a 6+ invul and you'd be surprised how many saves i've made lol

I admit its weird chainswords dont have a decent AP but i think marines would get a bit...too powerful in melee if they gave them a reasonable AP. Giving them Ap6 is more of a shot in the foot to Gaunts/Boyz/Nobz, which really DONT need more bullet holes in their foot, than it is a help to marines.

the difference is you said "Invul" Im talking about the regular 6+ save. a 6+ invul I would at least get to throw dice at and maybe save some boyz. As it stands i rarely get to even throw the dice to make saves because everything has AP it feels like.

Hey don't discount those ork t-shirt saves. One of my best friends plays tyranids and I've had countless carnifex S10 hammer of wrath attacks bounce off those sturdy cotton shields. But you're right, in the scope of things AP6 won't make a significant difference one way or another. As an ork player I'm 100% okay with it though for flavor reasons. They do LOOK like they should be better than an unspecified cc weapon.

I've once had a kommando nob make 3 6+ saves in a row to proceed chopping down a farseer.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Any time I make an attempt to do anything to the core rules all-or-nothing AP is the first to go.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lance845 wrote:
No save is significantly worse then a 6+ save.

The number of situations where you get a 6+ save is so small that no save is functionally identical to a 6+ save, unless you happen to be getting into combat with troops that don't have special melee weapons on a reliable basis (unlikely, with no armour against all the bullets coming your way).

out of curiosity what do you go wtih? Save mods?

Save mods seem like the way to go, IMHO.

I like the idea of AP 6 chainswords from a fluff stand point, but it would arguably be TO good against only 3 or 4 codexes.

I don't think save mods are the best option (weren't people whining about to many charts already? then again, people whine about everything ) but a bit of a re-balancing of what has, and doesn't have, high-med. AP.

Replacing the AP system with something new, should also cover all units to reduce complication in the game.IMO.

Most people who ask for armour save mods, want proportional results, which is good.
But only having 5 fixed results to start with , means modifiers seem to modify things a bit too much.
(And then do you have additional modifiers for inv, or AV values?)

If we use a system similar to the old to wound chart, but replace S and T with AP and AV values.

Where AV values run from 1 to 10(6+ save to AV 14).
And AP values run from 1 to 10.(Higher is better.)

Eg a models with AV 4 hit by AP 4 weapon saves on a 4+.

We can vary the save required results on the table to get finer adjustment .

Av/Ap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1........4,4,5,5,6,6,h,h,n,n
2........3.4.4.5.5.6.6.h.h.n.
3........3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.h.h.
4........2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.h.
5........2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.
6........1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.
7........1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.
8.......d.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5
9.......d.d.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4
10.....d.d.d.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.

h=Halve no if 6 rolled to determine penetrating hits.
n=No effect
d= Double penetrating hit.

Much of the game system has artifacts from it's 3rd edition roots, and most attempts at patching those artifacts just leads to weirdness (like having APs for melee weapons when before it use to be "it either ignores armor or not").

Personally I think it should go back to the old system, where melee weapons just came with a special rule or two. However, if people really do want something realistic, AP weapons should have their values completely changed into a modifier (so AP 1 would turn into the worst, giving a -1 to an enemy's armor save, while AP5 would be one of the best, giving -5 to an enemy's armor save and effectively erasing armor). This would require another grand rule overhaul to accomplish though, as it would require errating every single codex in print and flip around the AP (trying to make the current system backwards compatable will just result in more rules and weird runabouts).

If chainswords had a cost, I'd be fine with them having an AP value. After all, chainaxes are AP 4 and are a purchasable upgrade. An AP 5 chainsword that costs slightly less than a chainaxe seems fair to me.

Pretty much every Space Marine of every chapter (including Chaos) and most Imperium character models should have the option to purchase or trade their primary weapon for a sidearm and/or close combat weapon with the possibility of an upgrade to a chainsword or chainaxe at an appropriate cost.

@MechaEmperor7000.
A simpler way would be to just discard any save rolls that rolled equal or higher than the AP value of the weapon.
This has the same effect as modifiers but is more straightforward.

However, if AP was used as a modifier, then all the values would have to be re evaluated.
And if you are going to make significant changes like this, you might as well re write the rules to cover the current units and game size.
(Rather than just standard infantry in the open, and have extra/special rules for everything else!)

As an Ork player I might actually be ok with AP6 chainswords.
However, I'd expect to see an across the board points reduction for the Orks. Heck if I could get Ork boys for as low as say, 4 points a model I'd be ok with a save of -
It would make FnP stronger I think.

I would prefer to give chainswords(saw) a slight boost, rather than a fixed AP bonus .

I would prefer them to re roll natural 1s to wound.

As chain edged weapons are no more likely to cut through armour than standard blades, but tend to do more damage to soft tissue .

40k has many issues with its core rules not covering enough of the game play.(Because they are a WHFB derivative,)
And the rules for massed ranks hitting each other with swords , are not a good foundation for a game with skirmishing units shooting at each other.

Lanrak wrote:
Replacing the AP system with something new, should also cover all units to reduce complication in the game.IMO.

If we use a system similar to the old to wound chart, but replace S and T with AP and AV values.

Interesting idea.
At the moment I prefer a simple modification and only one save.
armour, fell no pain and cover stick together to one save (basic armour save, cover make it better, AP reduce it and FnP is the worst possible save the model can make)

question is, would you add the same chart for cover or combine them?
and how should feel no pain work?

@Kodos.
Well I prefer 'cover' to alter the chance to hit, and not change the save/armour value at all.

EG
Roll to hit.(Cover adds to the Stealth value of the target, or modifiers to the chance to hit.Depending if you use opposed values or unopposed stat.)

Then roll to save.(Compare AV to AP.)

Then roll to wound.(Compare weapon Damage (S)to target Resilience(T)

Feel No Pain , Inv saves, and separate AV system for vehicles are ONLY used because the basic resolution methods they borrowed from WHFB can not cover the range of results 40k needs.

If we use the table posted above to give a wider range of interaction, for the to hit, the to save , and the to wound in a new rule set.
All combat resolution can be cover in the same way, opposed values compared on a single table.

The current resolution methods in 40k , only generate about 60 possible outcomes, from the basic to hit,wound,save.
(Vehicles 'fall off the top end 'and slight differences have to rely on special rules due to lack of granularity in the basic system ....)

If we used opposed stats, with the new universal resolution table posted higher up.
This would generate over 250 possible outcomes. Which gives enough room for all the units in 40k to be covered in the basic resolution.

I probably need to explain this better.....

Lanrak wrote:
@Kodos.
Well I prefer 'cover' to alter the chance to hit, and not change the save/armour value at all.

I already use the "chance to hit modifier" for different stuff (like fast moving aircraft, stealth, etc)

And i don't think 40k needs 3 different saves to cover what is needed

@Kodos.
Modifiers to hit should include , jink, holo fields camo cloaks etc, also light and heavy cover IMO.

However , using a D6 based system with direct use of one stat.(BS.)
Can lead to lack of granularity in results .(And may lead to artificially restricting modifiers to a set amount.)

However , introducing opposed stat to BS , eg how hard the unit is to hit at range.(Stealth )
Allows more granularity to be represented.

I agree 40k only needs one damage resolution method to cover the combat resolution.
Active player model stat vs opposed player model stat, is my favorite option.

Lanrak wrote:
@Kodos.
Modifiers to hit should include , jink, holo fields camo cloaks etc, also light and heavy cover IMO.

However , introducing opposed stat to BS , eg how hard the unit is to hit at range.(Stealth )
Allows more granularity to be represented.
.

I also would like to add an opposing stat for BS and/or WS (WS VS WS is fine, but BS VS BS does not work, so BS VS AgilitySkill will do the job but leave the question why you don't have WS VS agility too)

I agree that jink, holo fields camo cloaks etc should be modifiers
but cover should be a save. if not, the whole "ignore cover" stuff will not work and you ran into the same problems like 40k (flame weapons can hit a fast moving aircraft easier than anti-aircraft guns)
There should be a difference between the save weapons can ignore (cover, armour etc) and a modifier only high BS models can ignore

On the topic of AP versus Save Modifiers, having played in 2nd Ed, Save Modifiers just slowed the whole game down. Much easier to just say "no save" or "save" when passing wounds over. YMMV of course, and the AP system isn't perfect by any stretch, but I think it's a lot simpler than Save Modifiers.

Lanrak wrote:
@MechaEmperor7000.
A simpler way would be to just discard any save rolls that rolled equal or higher than the AP value of the weapon.
This has the same effect as modifiers but is more straightforward.

However, if AP was used as a modifier, then all the values would have to be re evaluated.
And if you are going to make significant changes like this, you might as well re write the rules to cover the current units and game size.
(Rather than just standard infantry in the open, and have extra/special rules for everything else!)

This is actually pretty smart, although I can see there would be confusion since you no longer have a clear "minimum" roll. Currently, even with modifiers that add to your roll rather than modify the minimum requirement for the roll (like the Iron Hands FnP bonuses) we still prefer to just state a minimum roll for simplicity.

 Raichase wrote:
On the topic of AP versus Save Modifiers, having played in 2nd Ed, Save Modifiers just slowed the whole game down. Much easier to just say "no save" or "save" when passing wounds over. YMMV of course, and the AP system isn't perfect by any stretch, but I think it's a lot simpler than Save Modifiers.

maybe simpler but not faster. if you are used to modifiers you are just as fast as with the current system

ALL versions of the 40k rule set are over complicated, due to the compromise of having to make the 40k game an easy cross over for the WHFB players.
When RT was written WHFB was HUGE,the biggest selling non historical game, and in the top 5 most popular games in the world!
(According to GW sources.....)

So Rick used the WHFB mechanics and resolution methods to build a sci fi skirmish/RPG game on.(Rogue Trader.)
2nd ed 40k upped the model count and tried to make the rules more pick up game friendly.

Having a ridiculous amount of modifiers like 2nd ed has does slow the game down.

Having a ridiculous amount of special rules like 4th to 7th ed 40k has slows the game down.

Having a FEW LIMITED MODIFIERS , does not slow the game down.(Like all the good rule sets use!)

EG shooting modifiers,(From our alpha rules testing.)


If the target is ;-
Over 30" away. add 1 to the Targets Stealth value.

In light cover *,add 1 to the Targets Stealth value.

In heavy cover** , add 2 to the Targets Stealth value.
(Cover modifiers do not stack.)

* Light cover just makes the target harder to see, eg long grass, smoke, dust clouds, chian link fence etc.
**Heavy cover makes the Target harder to see , and has a chance of deflecting incomming fire.(EG strong walls , rubble ,trenches etc.)

Chemical weapons ignore cover modifiers.(So targets in light or heavy cover do not get the Stealth bonus vs chemical weapons)


The reason 40k has always had over complicated rules is the core game mechanic and resolution methods from WHFB, do not fit the game play of 40k.

The reason WHFB does not use an opposed value for shooting resolution, is because the targets are generally large blocks of troops in massed ranks.
The fact WHFB used 5 to 30 28mm models to represent the area the regiment took up,was to simply appeal to painters.This does not negate the fact the Regiment it represents is actually comprised of 100s or 10000 combatants!


Also ranged attacks in WHFB are used in a supporting role.The game play is all about getting the best close combat match ups.
Tactical maneuver and tactical use of ranged weapons is how players achieved this primary goal.

The BS value in WHFB could be said to be the percentage of missiles on target the firing unit can manage during a round of shooting.Rather than the chance of a model hitting an opposing model.

However the diveristy of units found in 40k needs to be represented by the stat line.IF 40k is to have a elegant and efficient rule set.IMO.

I would propose.
'To hit at range',(Shooting Skill), opposed by ability 'to avoid being hit at range'.(Stealth.)

'To hit in close' combat.(Assault Skill.), opposed by 'to avoid being hit in assault' .(Agility.)

'Armour Value' opposed by weapon 'Armour Piercing' value,

'Weapon Damage' opposed by target 'Resilience '

This way the brutal lumbering Orks may have an equal assault skill to an Eldar Banshee.
But the Banshee would have a much higher Agility than the Ork, making it less likely for the Ork to land blows on the Banshee in close combat.

Having a bit more granularity at the core reduces the need for EIGHTY PLUS special rules later...

Having a 5+ or 6+ save is essentially the same as having no save. You almost never get to take it, and when you do, it still fails.

If every Marine's close combat attacks were AP6, no one would notice. No the Marine players, not his victims.

So there's no reason to make such a change.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Having a 5+ or 6+ save is essentially the same as having no save. You almost never get to take it, and when you do, it still fails.

If every Marine's close combat attacks were AP6, no one would notice. No the Marine players, not his victims.

So there's no reason to make such a change.

And having 4+ isn't that great either since the game is inundated with AP4 weapons. When I upgrade my Orks to Heavy Armor I almost always regret it.

At the moment there are only 3 saves available, 2+, 3+ or no-save.

But it makes a huge difference if you can make the 5+ save you paid points for or not