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.

I really like 40k, but the thing that will always irk me is this: "why does almost every ranged weapon have an AP value that pretty much negates 5+ and 6+ armour saves?"
Only if your model is wearing a 4+, 3+ or 2+ armour save it becomes interesting to ask your opponent what the AP value is on their weapon.
Additionally, pretty much always a weapon with a high strength value has a low AP value, there only a few exceptions from this and those are in the Tyranids Codex, which is a terrible codex atm.

What I would like to propose is to create a more variable weapon set where not every high strength weapon has a low AP value and where at the same time there are more low strength weapons with a low AP value.
High strength weapons (S7/8/9/10) with no or a high AP value will be mostly effective against vehicles and less effective against some elite infantry units.
While at the same time having more low/medium strength weapons (S3/4/5) with a low AP value, like AP2 and AP3, so that these are very useful against elite infantry but not against vehicles.
You could even make a difference between blast weapons and single shot weapons regarding the AP value they are rocking. A single shot from a Tau railgun could still be S10/AP1 while a single shot from a Skitarii Neutronlaser could be S10/AP4 since it is a blast weapon.
I know that this would make some units quite ridiculous, like monstrous creatures with a 2+ or 3+ armour save, but I think you could balance shooting quite a bit this way.
A good way to fill up the middle gap of S6 and S7 would be to consider more weapons like plasma, these weapons have a decent strength value and a low AP value while capable of hurting the owner of said weapon.
The same thing should be done with D weapons, why do these weapons always have to be AP2? Why not have a D weapon with no AP value at all? If you roll a six on the table, you will still negate the saves and almost certainly wipe the poor victim from the table.

So with this I think there will be a greater variation in weapon choices, do you choose weapons with a low strengths value and a good AP value to deal with those pesky space marines and terminators?
Or do you choose high strength weapons to deal with mech and tank heavy lists?
Or the medium route with things like plasma to deal better with monstrous creatures?

Good idea? Or not?

(Also, I did not think about grav and haywire while thinking of this and do not want to, since these two have already been heavily debated in the past.)

This is an awful idea and you should feel bad for posting it

Sounds similar to what I did for my rule changes - dropped AP 6, 5 & 4. Str 6 usually has an AP -1 (-1 to your armor saves), Str 7-8 is usually AP -2, Str 9-10 is usually AP -4. If you give Terminators an armor save of 1+ (still failing on a natural one) this has the bonus effects that Terminators didn't need invulnerable saves, they still make their save on a 5 or 6 against the most destructive weapons, besides D.

However, Strength doesn't have to be tied directly to AP, that was just "average".

Still, the way 40K works, having a high Strength weapon with a low AP is overkill on infantry (STR 6+ is a 2+ wound usually), and a low-Strength weapon with a high AP still can't affect vehicles. In most cases, there's not much reason to tweak AP by one point or so either direction.

However, giving 6+ and 5+ Armors their chance to save back against weapons that aren't anti-vehicle would be nice.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
This is an awful idea and you should feel bad for posting it

Why is it an awful idea? Please elaborate.

 Stormonu wrote:
Sounds similar to what I did for my rule changes - dropped AP 6, 5 & 4. Str 6 usually has an AP -1 (-1 to your armor saves), Str 7-8 is usually AP -2, Str 9-10 is usually AP -4. If you give Terminators an armor save of 1+ (still failing on a natural one) this has the bonus effects that Terminators didn't need invulnerable saves, they still make their save on a 5 or 6 against the most destructive weapons, besides D.

However, Strength doesn't have to be tied directly to AP, that was just "average".

Still, the way 40K works, having a high Strength weapon with a low AP is overkill on infantry (STR 6+ is a 2+ wound usually), and a low-Strength weapon with a high AP still can't affect vehicles. In most cases, there's not much reason to tweak AP by one point or so either direction.

However, giving 6+ and 5+ Armors their chance to save back against weapons that aren't anti-vehicle would be nice.

Sounds a bit like how the old armour system in fantasy worked, there strength would also decrease your armour. It is not even that bad an idea to implant in 40k, but you do lose a lot of possible weapon variants however.

Terrible idea, the whole point of these high strength weapons is that they are there to cut through armour easily.

Not that it matters much; single shot, high strength weapons are poor in the current meta with mid strength, high rate of fire weapons being the best choices. Scatter lasers aren't good because they are AP6, they're good because a load of S6 shots forces a lot of saves that can whittle away at 2+ armour pretty quickly.

@Arlen: Eh. What you're proposing would be fine as a design philosophy for a specific faction, but I don't see any reason to toss such broad restrictions on weapons in general. A tau pulse rifle doesn't really have a downside compared to a bolter, but that's fine. The tau gun is meant to be better. A warp hunter's strength D small blast is strictly better than an IG mortar's small blast, but that's fine. One is far more expensive than the other (though the IG mortar's supposedly need a redesign from what I hear).

I think you're nudging at the idea that it's more interesting to choose between and face off against weapons that have clear advantages and disadvantages. There's a lot of merit to that, but it 's a bit too simple and limiting for the wide variety of weapons used in 40k.

Also, it would be quite odd for my bright lance or pulse laser to be curiously bad at hurting a space marine despite being very good at blasting through the armor of a vehicle.

@Arlen.
I agree.This is another 'hang over' from WHFB rules.

In WHFB the primitive weapons and armour can be covered by the simple strength of wielder= damage and amount of armour penetration.
The harder you swing the sword/ pull the bow string the more kinetic energy is put on the target.
As the weapons in WHFB are basically inert lumps of rock/metal.And nearly all that targets are organic with simple hide/metal armour.
This simple system user strength is directly proportional to damage and AP value covers the game play well enough.

However, in 40k the high tec weapons and defense systems , should not have to follow this restrictive concept , as they should have much wider range of effects on different target types.
EG,
Basically anti infantry weapons should have high rates of fire/large area of effect and relatively low AP, and low to moderate damage values.

Anti vehicle weapons should have low rates of fire, High AP values and moderate damage values.

Anti M/C weapons should have low rate of fire moderate AP values and higher Damage values.

@ Stormonu.
I know some people want to go back to armour save modifiers, but they are a bit clunky compared to more modern options.(IMO.)

''However, Strength doesn't have to be tied directly to AP, that was just "average".
However, giving 6+ and 5+ Armors their chance to save back against weapons that aren't anti-vehicle would be nice.''

I agree with these two statements.

Nothing wrong with it, really. There have been examples of such weapons. Like a manticore with s10 ap4 ordinance or hotshot lazguns with s3 ap3. The gsc artifact that's something like 12-shot s2 but rending - making it effectively ap2.

As for the armor and weapons, 5+ and 6+ can still have an effect in mellee, vs explosions, dang terrain, etc. Yeah, shooting generally ignores it but i don't think it's a source of some sort of imbalance.

@koooaei.
It is really multiple 'errors' with the core rules for 40k that make for issues with the game play.
Individually they are not that much of a big deal, but put together the way 40k rules put them together, and it is leads to a negative impact on game play.

1)Lack of player interaction in the game turn.(Tactical maneuver diminished too much by increase in model count.)

2)Over simplified shooting resolution.
a) SIngle unopposed roll to hit.
b)' All or nothing' AP system.

2) Limited shooting effects.('Shoot to kill' only , no options for suppression fire /Lo.O.S blocking munition etc.)

3) Removing options for tactical choices based on movement .

Other war games manage to arrive at well defined intuitive rules that deliver the expected game play with the minimum of fuss.
GW plc does not even bother trying to define the game play of 40k....