Switch Theme:

Weapons with AP+X modifiers  [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 fr
Longtime Dakkanaut




With armor save modifiers, we could now have positive AP, that improve the target's armor instead of lowering it. It could represent weapons that are weaker than standard projectiles (like shrapnel), and this could be used to create better anti-horde weapons.
To kill hordes you need a high number of shots/attacks. But the problem with very high rate of fire is that it's also pretty effective against most other targets.
A weapon with AP+1 couldn't even wound a TEQ, and would have its killing potential halved against MEQ (compared to AP0). But against conscripts, orks or guants, it wouldn't have too much effect.

I didn't see any AP+X weapons in the index, but they're mostly translations from 7th.
AoS has been using armor modifiers for a while (as many other games), but I don't know of any rend+X weapons (although I don't know the game very well). Is this something GW never thought of, or is there a reason that AP+X would be very bad overall?
   
Made in us
Auspicious Daemonic Herald





Why would anyone use a weapon that gives your opponent an armor save buff?
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




A weapon like that would need the most ridiculous number of shots to ever kill anything to make for proper horde control. Terrible idea.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Ragin' Ork Dreadnought




It's not the worst idea ever, but it'd require ridiculously high volume of fire to be remotely worth it.

I still think that the way to go for anti-horde weaponry SHOULD be weapons that scale number of shots with unit size, but that's an idea that GW seems almost allergic to, and only implements with incredible scarcity bordering on nonexistence for most players.
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




I think it's generally what they'd need to do to actually have a weapon capable of killing light infantry. Their ruleset is pretty limited otherwise. Scaling weapons with unit size doesn't really help because Infantry squads and Horrors come in 10s anyway.

The proposal generally works really well for most things. The big issue with it is how it interacts with 2+ saves -- they'll still fail on a 1, so you end up creating a weapon which is good against hordes, terrible against Marines in the open, and then weirdly good against Terminators and 3+ aves in cover. Perhaps if the weapon also had a special rule that 1+ saves automatically pass against it.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Random, disorganized thoughts:

*From a fluff persepctive, a guardsman punching an enemy in the face is AP 0. I think most people will agree that shrapnel is generally better at penetrating armor than punches and pistol whips. So from a purely fluff point of view, you'd be compelled to either only have AP + weapons refer to things that are worse at penetrating armor than a punch, or else you'd have to go through and nerf any model that doesn't seem to have access to some sort of melee weapon to have an AP of +1 or worse.

*Small arms and high volume of fire weapons actually seem pretty decent at killing light infantry this edition, and various changes have made many of those weapons relatively bad at hurting heavier infantry. A scatter laser, for instance, fired at BS 3+ will generate roughly 2 wounds against toughness 4. This will probably kill two ork boyz, but it only has a 2/3rds chance of killing a single space marine.

A bolter wound will almost definitely kill a model with a 6+ save (orks and gaunts), but it only has a 1/3rd chance of hurting a marine.

Heavy bolters reduce most light infantry saves to 6+ or 7+ while only reducing a marine's save to 3+.

What I'm getting at is that I don't necessarily agree that we lack weapons that are efficient against light infantry but inefficient against heavy infantry. Twenty lasguns will kill a few marines, but they'll kill significantly more light infantry models.

*Following the "tons of attacks with poor AP" formula, you'd potentially end up in a scenario where you spend time rolling a ton of dice to relatively little effect. Unless this is dramatically statstically different from rolling fewer dice with higher strength and better AP, you're probably better off abstracting the effect with fewer dice.

For instance, someone once suggested making shuriken catapults Assault 10 (or some other ridiculously high value) but strength 1. The idea was that individual shuriken don't have much killing power, and you're essentially just fishing for the "rends" on 6s that wound regardless of toughness at AP - 3. From a fluff perspective, this would kind of make sense. The gun works on the premise that you fire thousands of projectiles that tear the target apart small cut by small cut. In practice, most people don't want to spend time rolling 200 dice every time 10 guardian defenders shoot at something.

So instead, you abstract them to strength 4, 2 shots, and give them a "critical hit" mechanic to show that they've overwhelmed conventional defenses by sheer volume of monomolecular fire.

I think the concept in general is neat, but I struggle to think of a weapon profile with a positive AP value that I'd prefer to an abstracted weapon with fewer shots of a higher quality.

Remember, ork boyz with a +1 save now make twice as many armor saves as normal. So if you wanted to make an AP+1 frag grenade, you'd need to double the number of average wounds generated just to break even with the current grenade.


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
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

 CrownAxe wrote:
Why would anyone use a weapon that gives your opponent an armor save buff?


Because you might use it to kill stuff that doesn't have good saves to begin with.

Things like Guardsmen, Gaunts, Ork Boyz, etc... Improving an Ork boy's t-shirt save from 6+ to 5+ could easily be offset by the rate of fire of your weapon.

It wouldn't be a great idea vs stuff with 4+ or better saves.


Also, oddly enough it would be strangely effective vs 2+ saves. You'd get more shots, and your target's armor wouldn't be improved any further anyway since 1s always fail.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/09/21 23:35:40


Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




Wyldhunt wrote:
Random, disorganized thoughts:

*From a fluff persepctive, a guardsman punching an enemy in the face is AP 0. I think most people will agree that shrapnel is generally better at penetrating armor than punches and pistol whips. So from a purely fluff point of view, you'd be compelled to either only have AP + weapons refer to things that are worse at penetrating armor than a punch, or else you'd have to go through and nerf any model that doesn't seem to have access to some sort of melee weapon to have an AP of +1 or worse.

*Small arms and high volume of fire weapons actually seem pretty decent at killing light infantry this edition, and various changes have made many of those weapons relatively bad at hurting heavier infantry. A scatter laser, for instance, fired at BS 3+ will generate roughly 2 wounds against toughness 4. This will probably kill two ork boyz, but it only has a 2/3rds chance of killing a single space marine.

A bolter wound will almost definitely kill a model with a 6+ save (orks and gaunts), but it only has a 1/3rd chance of hurting a marine.

Heavy bolters reduce most light infantry saves to 6+ or 7+ while only reducing a marine's save to 3+.

What I'm getting at is that I don't necessarily agree that we lack weapons that are efficient against light infantry but inefficient against heavy infantry. Twenty lasguns will kill a few marines, but they'll kill significantly more light infantry models.

*Following the "tons of attacks with poor AP" formula, you'd potentially end up in a scenario where you spend time rolling a ton of dice to relatively little effect. Unless this is dramatically statstically different from rolling fewer dice with higher strength and better AP, you're probably better off abstracting the effect with fewer dice.

For instance, someone once suggested making shuriken catapults Assault 10 (or some other ridiculously high value) but strength 1. The idea was that individual shuriken don't have much killing power, and you're essentially just fishing for the "rends" on 6s that wound regardless of toughness at AP - 3. From a fluff perspective, this would kind of make sense. The gun works on the premise that you fire thousands of projectiles that tear the target apart small cut by small cut. In practice, most people don't want to spend time rolling 200 dice every time 10 guardian defenders shoot at something.

So instead, you abstract them to strength 4, 2 shots, and give them a "critical hit" mechanic to show that they've overwhelmed conventional defenses by sheer volume of monomolecular fire.

I think the concept in general is neat, but I struggle to think of a weapon profile with a positive AP value that I'd prefer to an abstracted weapon with fewer shots of a higher quality.

I don't think this really makes sense. First, surely we can say that regular CC profiles are assuming some sort of close combat weapon, such as a knife. Like, obviously something is going on here, right? Guardsmen aren't punching Space Marines in the chest and taking them out of the fight. Maybe CC attacks can more easily be directed at the weak points in armor, etc. I don't see that a change would need to be made here for consistency.

Second, we absolutely do not have good weapons for killing light infantry right now. You don't talk at all about point costs, but obviously this is a pretty important consideration. The problem is that a bolter is more efficient for killing Marines than for killing Guardsmen -- a bolter hit kills 1.78 points of 4-point Guardsmen and 2.17 points of 13-point Marines. You bring up heavy bolters, but of course 8th edition turned these into highly-specialized MEQ-killing weapons -- GEQs now get a save against them and are only wounded on a 3+, whereas Marines now suffer from their AP-1. If you're shooting a heavy bolter at Guardsmen, you are wasting its potential. The only weapons that got relatively better against GEQs are S6 and S7 with no AP. These are pretty rare, and regardless they start off so inefficient against GEQs that they're obviously not going to be the answer to light infantry -- they're more specialized towards MEQ-killing than bolters are.

AP+1 would actually make a huge difference here. An S3 AP+1 weapon kills 1 point of Guardsmen per hit and only .72 points of Marines. That's a factor of 1.7 change in what we might call the weapon's specialization ratio, relative to a bolter (1.5 relative to a lasgun). It would actually be marginally more efficient against even Conscripts than against Marines.

Compare these numbers to what you would have gotten out of various weapons in earlier editions. An old-style S4 AP5 hit would kill 2.67 points of Guardsmen and 2.17 points of Marines. Light infantry got a massive survivability buff, and right now it is actually impossible for many armies to field something that's better at killing Conscripts or Infantry than it is at killing Marines.

Remember, ork boyz with a +1 save now make twice as many armor saves as normal. So if you wanted to make an AP+1 frag grenade, you'd need to double the number of average wounds generated just to break even with the current grenade.

I suspect this was just a brain fart, but to be clear: you only need 20% more wounds to break even, since what we're interested in is the number of failed saves rather than the number of successful saves.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/09/22 14:09:02


 
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





Wyldhunt wrote:
Random, disorganized thoughts:

*From a fluff persepctive, a guardsman punching an enemy in the face is AP 0. I think most people will agree that shrapnel is generally better at penetrating armor than punches and pistol whips. So from a purely fluff point of view, you'd be compelled to either only have AP + weapons refer to things that are worse at penetrating armor than a punch, or else you'd have to go through and nerf any model that doesn't seem to have access to some sort of melee weapon to have an AP of +1 or worse.

*Small arms and high volume of fire weapons actually seem pretty decent at killing light infantry this edition, and various changes have made many of those weapons relatively bad at hurting heavier infantry. A scatter laser, for instance, fired at BS 3+ will generate roughly 2 wounds against toughness 4. This will probably kill two ork boyz, but it only has a 2/3rds chance of killing a single space marine.

A bolter wound will almost definitely kill a model with a 6+ save (orks and gaunts), but it only has a 1/3rd chance of hurting a marine.

Heavy bolters reduce most light infantry saves to 6+ or 7+ while only reducing a marine's save to 3+.

What I'm getting at is that I don't necessarily agree that we lack weapons that are efficient against light infantry but inefficient against heavy infantry. Twenty lasguns will kill a few marines, but they'll kill significantly more light infantry models.

*Following the "tons of attacks with poor AP" formula, you'd potentially end up in a scenario where you spend time rolling a ton of dice to relatively little effect. Unless this is dramatically statstically different from rolling fewer dice with higher strength and better AP, you're probably better off abstracting the effect with fewer dice.

For instance, someone once suggested making shuriken catapults Assault 10 (or some other ridiculously high value) but strength 1. The idea was that individual shuriken don't have much killing power, and you're essentially just fishing for the "rends" on 6s that wound regardless of toughness at AP - 3. From a fluff perspective, this would kind of make sense. The gun works on the premise that you fire thousands of projectiles that tear the target apart small cut by small cut. In practice, most people don't want to spend time rolling 200 dice every time 10 guardian defenders shoot at something.

So instead, you abstract them to strength 4, 2 shots, and give them a "critical hit" mechanic to show that they've overwhelmed conventional defenses by sheer volume of monomolecular fire.

I think the concept in general is neat, but I struggle to think of a weapon profile with a positive AP value that I'd prefer to an abstracted weapon with fewer shots of a higher quality.

Remember, ork boyz with a +1 save now make twice as many armor saves as normal. So if you wanted to make an AP+1 frag grenade, you'd need to double the number of average wounds generated just to break even with the current grenade.


The issue is using Orks in your comparison which are fairly balanced as far as a horde unit goes. If you look at 10 rapid firing bolters against Marines they average 2.22 Casulties or 28.9 points of models. They kill 5.6 orks or ~33.3 points of models. So bolters are fairly equal in both cases but slightly better against their desired target of orks. The problem is when you throw in cheaper units like Conscripts (5.9 models, 17.8 points), Brimstones (4.4 models, 13.3 points), or even gretchin (9.25 modles17.8) they end up being worse against those targets, when they should be better.

The problem with the suggested fix is that it helps a bit much it narrows the gap a bit, but not enough especially for 2+ save models who receive no benefit. With an AP+1, The numbers go to killing 1.1 marines (14.4 points), 4.4 Orks (26.6 points), 4.4 Conscripts (13.3 points), Brims (same as before), 7.4 Gretchin (22.2 points). Further you would never go beyond +1 or it negates the gains by most units.

The problem is with killing points, not models.
   
Made in ro
Regular Dakkanaut




For killing masses of infantry, being allowed to use pistols and other weapons seems much more attractive to me. This gives marines a 50% boost in firepower but only at 12" which is kinda engaging tactically.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Dionysodorus wrote:
Wyldhunt wrote:
Random, disorganized thoughts:

*From a fluff persepctive, a guardsman punching an enemy in the face is AP 0. I think most people will agree that shrapnel is generally better at penetrating armor than punches and pistol whips. So from a purely fluff point of view, you'd be compelled to either only have AP + weapons refer to things that are worse at penetrating armor than a punch, or else you'd have to go through and nerf any model that doesn't seem to have access to some sort of melee weapon to have an AP of +1 or worse.

*Small arms and high volume of fire weapons actually seem pretty decent at killing light infantry this edition, and various changes have made many of those weapons relatively bad at hurting heavier infantry. A scatter laser, for instance, fired at BS 3+ will generate roughly 2 wounds against toughness 4. This will probably kill two ork boyz, but it only has a 2/3rds chance of killing a single space marine.

A bolter wound will almost definitely kill a model with a 6+ save (orks and gaunts), but it only has a 1/3rd chance of hurting a marine.

Heavy bolters reduce most light infantry saves to 6+ or 7+ while only reducing a marine's save to 3+.

What I'm getting at is that I don't necessarily agree that we lack weapons that are efficient against light infantry but inefficient against heavy infantry. Twenty lasguns will kill a few marines, but they'll kill significantly more light infantry models.

*Following the "tons of attacks with poor AP" formula, you'd potentially end up in a scenario where you spend time rolling a ton of dice to relatively little effect. Unless this is dramatically statstically different from rolling fewer dice with higher strength and better AP, you're probably better off abstracting the effect with fewer dice.

For instance, someone once suggested making shuriken catapults Assault 10 (or some other ridiculously high value) but strength 1. The idea was that individual shuriken don't have much killing power, and you're essentially just fishing for the "rends" on 6s that wound regardless of toughness at AP - 3. From a fluff perspective, this would kind of make sense. The gun works on the premise that you fire thousands of projectiles that tear the target apart small cut by small cut. In practice, most people don't want to spend time rolling 200 dice every time 10 guardian defenders shoot at something.

So instead, you abstract them to strength 4, 2 shots, and give them a "critical hit" mechanic to show that they've overwhelmed conventional defenses by sheer volume of monomolecular fire.

I think the concept in general is neat, but I struggle to think of a weapon profile with a positive AP value that I'd prefer to an abstracted weapon with fewer shots of a higher quality.

I don't think this really makes sense. First, surely we can say that regular CC profiles are assuming some sort of close combat weapon, such as a knife. Like, obviously something is going on here, right? Guardsmen aren't punching Space Marines in the chest and taking them out of the fight. Maybe CC attacks can more easily be directed at the weak points in armor, etc. I don't see that a change would need to be made here for consistency.

Second, we absolutely do not have good weapons for killing light infantry right now. You don't talk at all about point costs, but obviously this is a pretty important consideration. The problem is that a bolter is more efficient for killing Marines than for killing Guardsmen -- a bolter hit kills 1.78 points of 4-point Guardsmen and 2.17 points of 13-point Marines. You bring up heavy bolters, but of course 8th edition turned these into highly-specialized MEQ-killing weapons -- GEQs now get a save against them and are only wounded on a 3+, whereas Marines now suffer from their AP-1. If you're shooting a heavy bolter at Guardsmen, you are wasting its potential. The only weapons that got relatively better against GEQs are S6 and S7 with no AP. These are pretty rare, and regardless they start off so inefficient against GEQs that they're obviously not going to be the answer to light infantry -- they're more specialized towards MEQ-killing than bolters are.

AP+1 would actually make a huge difference here. An S3 AP+1 weapon kills 1 point of Guardsmen per hit and only .72 points of Marines. That's a factor of 1.7 change in what we might call the weapon's specialization ratio, relative to a bolter (1.5 relative to a lasgun). It would actually be marginally more efficient against even Conscripts than against Marines.

Compare these numbers to what you would have gotten out of various weapons in earlier editions. An old-style S4 AP5 hit would kill 2.67 points of Guardsmen and 2.17 points of Marines. Light infantry got a massive survivability buff, and right now it is actually impossible for many armies to field something that's better at killing Conscripts or Infantry than it is at killing Marines.

Remember, ork boyz with a +1 save now make twice as many armor saves as normal. So if you wanted to make an AP+1 frag grenade, you'd need to double the number of average wounds generated just to break even with the current grenade.

I suspect this was just a brain fart, but to be clear: you only need 20% more wounds to break even, since what we're interested in is the number of failed saves rather than the number of successful saves.


Ah. Solid points. And yes, that was in fact a brain fart. I think I'm convinced on the premise at this point. Would anyone care to pitch a profile for a +AP weapon?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Breng:

You also make solid points. Out of curiosity, what do those numbers look like after an average morale roll of 3 or 4? Obviously some units, such as conscripts, can be made fearless and make this a moot point, but that's its own can of worms (that needs to be ammended at some point).

Do the numbers start looking more appropriate when you factor in losses from morale?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Trollbert wrote:
For killing masses of infantry, being allowed to use pistols and other weapons seems much more attractive to me. This gives marines a 50% boost in firepower but only at 12" which is kinda engaging tactically.


Like... letting marines fire both their pistols and their bolters on a given turn? I don't know. My brain is kind of rejecting the mental image of marines running and gunning with an automatic two-handed weapon in one hand and a pistol in the other. I doubt the Codex Astartes supports this action. ;D

Also, this wouldn't really address the "points vs bodies" issue. Unless I'm mistaken, the topic at hand isn't that we lack ways of killing hordes or that marines don't have enough dakka; it's that dakka intended for use against hordes is frequently equally good or even better against marines. See the post above about heavy bolters. Lascannons are obviously an anti-tank gun. High strength. One shot. Does lots of damage to one thing. In comparison, heavy bolters seem like they'r meant to be anti-infantry guns. Triple the shots, almost half the strength, in previous editions had an AP value that ignored medium and light armor but not heavy armor. But in practice, you'll actually remove points from your opponent's army faster by killing marines (heavy infantry) than guardsmen (light infantry).

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/09/23 15:23:59



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 us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

Here is how I would build a theoretical anti-infantry weapon that improved saves.

Frag Cannon: range 12. Assault 4D6+4. Str5. AP+1.

High strength, but it improves saves by one. Making it only really effective vs squishy targets. T4 or less with 5+ or worse saves. It would wound marines on 3s, but they'd be saving on 2s. About only 5% chance per hit of killing a marine. But it would shred orks, guardsmen, etc...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/23 17:13:27


Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

 Grey Templar wrote:
Here is how I would build a theoretical anti-infantry weapon that improved saves.

Frag Cannon: range 12. Assault 4D6+4. Str5. AP+1.

High strength, but it improves saves by one. Making it only really effective vs squishy targets. T4 or less with 5+ or worse saves. It would wound marines on 3s, but they'd be saving on 2s. About only 5% chance per hit of killing a marine. But it would shred orks, guardsmen, etc...


And Terminators. They save on 2s either way.

Also, let's see... Kills 17.33 points of Marines (18 shots, 12 hits (assuming BS 3+), 8 wounds, 1.33 dead) and 32 points of Boys (18 shots, 12 hits, 8 wounds, 5.33 dead). Of course, Conscripts... (18 shots, 12 hits, 8 wounds, 4 dead) it kills only 12 points. (16 Points of regular infantry.) Plus it makes cover pointless for Marines.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




The S5 is probably why. Try S4 and you might see a better difference.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Ragin' Ork Dreadnought




If the +1 allowed save rolls of 1 to pass, it could work. If it doesn't, you just have a weapon that is weak against 3+ saves out of cover and 4+/5+ saves in cover, but good against 2+ saves, 3+ saves in cover, and 5+/6+ saves out of cover.
Which is what you're trying to avoid...
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: