Switch Theme:

Weapon strength and damage  [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 cz
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks






your mind

I was reading comments listening to Auspex Tactics and saw one that said that plasma guns don’t warrant the extra attention because they don’t cause enough extra damage, and make resolution of shooting attacks for squads with some special or varied weapons too difficult. The idea seemed to be to get rid of the distinction.

I remember when plasma guns were to be feared, and wonder about the consensus here. It seems to me that bolters should be str 3 d 1, las guns 2 d 1, plasma str 4 d 1 or 5 d 2 (roll a 1 and lose a wound) and should be one of the deadlier guns in the game. Heavier stronger things should start being expensive in 40k imho to represent its focal scale of engagement.

So, what do you think? What should be the average weapon str and dam in 40K? Should plasma be special, at all?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/07/03 19:33:47


   
Made in ca
Stormin' Stompa






Ottawa, ON

I assumed plasma guns were meant to be a happy medium between bolt guns and meltas. More punchy than a bolter, but more shots than a melta. You could make the damage a D3 and a D6 on the overcharge?

Ask yourself: have you rated a gallery image today? 
   
Made in us
Storm Trooper with Maglight



Cadia

One IG plasma gun vs. MEQs: 0.555 dead per turn.

The entire rest of the squad shooting lasguns: 0.5 dead per turn.

The premise of this thread is false.

THE PLANET BROKE BEFORE THE GUARD! 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




NE Ohio, USA

Ignore those people. Things are fine as is.
You take plasma to cause damage (-3ap), not to cause more damage. Though if you really want to you can overcharge the shot....
   
Made in mx
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan




Mexico

I have an inherent issue with the idea that a hand held weapon "should be one of the deadlier guns in the game" when in the same game we have tank guns and giant monsters with giant guns.

Lethality should be somewhat proportional to the size of the gun.
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







 jeff white wrote:
I was reading comments listening to Auspex Tactics and saw one that said that plasma guns don’t warrant the extra attention because they don’t cause enough extra damage, and make resolution of shooting attacks for squads with some special or varied weapons too difficult. The idea seemed to be to get rid of the distinction.

Anyone claiming that having a couple of dice of a different colour with them to allow resolving plasma attacks at the same time as basic weapon attacks is too difficult has larger problems than the plasma weapon profiles.

AoC and the increasing number of -1D rules may have reduced the appeal of plasma weapons compared to other options, though - which given it was the automatic pick as a special weapon for all of 8th and a good chunk of 9th, is probably a good thing.

2021-4 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

My Pile of Potential - updates ongoing...

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


 Kanluwen wrote:
This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...

tneva82 wrote:
You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something... 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut





Plasma was indeed once a thing to be feared. When AP was changed in 8th, the appeal of Plasma took off as it was a great way of taking out Marines as well as vehicles. Plasma was the bane of the new Primaris range as it could kill them outright and was very easily accessible. It is for these reasons that invulnerable saves became one of the main metas.

Since then, although Plasma itself has not changed, GW has made other changes:

They introduced and tweaked marines that don't die as easily to Plasma (notably, Gravis and Terminators)
They added a load more -1 damage rules
They buffed Melta which is just better in most cases

It's still a fearsome thing to come against en-masse (unless you are Death Guard) however the reason plasma isn't as scary as it used to be is mostly because of the power creep of other weapons. The aforementioned melta, railguns as well as a host of other guns that immediately look overpowered in comparison

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/04 05:31:30


 
   
Made in us
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks






your mind

Thanks Sumilidon. That is exactly my point, that other guns made plasma a non-thing, such that some players might class them as standard bolter class infantry guns.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/04 23:23:28


   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




I feel like myself and several other posters here said that power creep for Space Marines was an astonishing thing to behold and that shortly after every single buff they receive in terms of durability/dmg output there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Christ i'm going to term this "Semper's third law of Speese Mehreens"

Here we are with Marines getting AoC and now we have threads about Bolters not being good enough and this one about Plasma not being good enough anymore.

 Tomsug wrote:
Semper krumps under the radar

 
   
Made in ca
Librarian with Freaky Familiar






Sumilidon wrote:
Plasma was indeed once a thing to be feared. When AP was changed in 8th, the appeal of Plasma took off as it was a great way of taking out Marines as well as vehicles. Plasma was the bane of the new Primaris range as it could kill them outright and was very easily accessible. It is for these reasons that invulnerable saves became one of the main metas.

Since then, although Plasma itself has not changed, GW has made other changes:

They introduced and tweaked marines that don't die as easily to Plasma (notably, Gravis and Terminators)
They added a load more -1 damage rules
They buffed Melta which is just better in most cases

It's still a fearsome thing to come against en-masse (unless you are Death Guard) however the reason plasma isn't as scary as it used to be is mostly because of the power creep of other weapons. The aforementioned melta, railguns as well as a host of other guns that immediately look overpowered in comparison


Its almost like the thing i constantly rail on 8th and 9th for, the rending AP system, is the primary cause of all the balance and lethality issues, not just plasma. 4

To many unpainted models to count. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Backspacehacker wrote:
Sumilidon wrote:
Plasma was indeed once a thing to be feared. When AP was changed in 8th, the appeal of Plasma took off as it was a great way of taking out Marines as well as vehicles. Plasma was the bane of the new Primaris range as it could kill them outright and was very easily accessible. It is for these reasons that invulnerable saves became one of the main metas.

Since then, although Plasma itself has not changed, GW has made other changes:

They introduced and tweaked marines that don't die as easily to Plasma (notably, Gravis and Terminators)
They added a load more -1 damage rules
They buffed Melta which is just better in most cases

It's still a fearsome thing to come against en-masse (unless you are Death Guard) however the reason plasma isn't as scary as it used to be is mostly because of the power creep of other weapons. The aforementioned melta, railguns as well as a host of other guns that immediately look overpowered in comparison


Its almost like the thing i constantly rail on 8th and 9th for, the rending AP system, is the primary cause of all the balance and lethality issues, not just plasma. 4

The rending AP system is not the cause LOL
   
Made in ca
Librarian with Freaky Familiar






EviscerationPlague wrote:
 Backspacehacker wrote:
Sumilidon wrote:
Plasma was indeed once a thing to be feared. When AP was changed in 8th, the appeal of Plasma took off as it was a great way of taking out Marines as well as vehicles. Plasma was the bane of the new Primaris range as it could kill them outright and was very easily accessible. It is for these reasons that invulnerable saves became one of the main metas.

Since then, although Plasma itself has not changed, GW has made other changes:

They introduced and tweaked marines that don't die as easily to Plasma (notably, Gravis and Terminators)
They added a load more -1 damage rules
They buffed Melta which is just better in most cases

It's still a fearsome thing to come against en-masse (unless you are Death Guard) however the reason plasma isn't as scary as it used to be is mostly because of the power creep of other weapons. The aforementioned melta, railguns as well as a host of other guns that immediately look overpowered in comparison


Its almost like the thing i constantly rail on 8th and 9th for, the rending AP system, is the primary cause of all the balance and lethality issues, not just plasma. 4

The rending AP system is not the cause LOL


It really is when you take a step back and look it at, all of the changes to try and make things more durable have been in direct relation to the arms race of the rending AP system and how its effecting everything on the board.
We first had the problem of things not dying fast enough, so what did GW do? handed out more AP.
Then things died to quick so they gave out more wounds
Then things did not die fast enough so they gave out Multi wound weapons and more AP
Then things died to quickly, so they gave out invulns and only woundable on 4+ because Armor saves became worthless because of all the AP in the game
Then big guns felt super bad so they made them ingnore invulns, but things still died to quickly
So then we got Armor of Contempt which just ignores an AP value rather then just addressing the core problem, the rending AP system, and now we see GW just slapping armor of content onto things like they are advertising FLEX TAPE on late night infomercials.

Armor saves in 40k 9th ed mean basically nothing anymore and models live and die on their invuln save evey game of 9th, i would roll more invuln saves then i would armor saves becasue of the rending AP. You fix the AP issue by removing rending, if anything from ranged weapons you fix the problem. The rending system does not have an issue in melee because again you need to get into melee but at range its causing asinine amount of issues.

The best solution is return to the old AP system, and either handle it like 30k does where rending and breaching rules are a lot more common so a good amount of it is left to chance, or change the AP system to the old system and have it were if the AP of the weapon = the sv of the target, the target gets its save roll at a -1

I guarantee you 100% you will fix a massive amount of lethality on the field, not all of it, but you will fix the majority of it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/05 02:32:28


To many unpainted models to count. 
   
Made in mx
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan




Mexico

Considering that using autocannon/missile launcher/lascannon/melta we can extrapolate the following equivalency:

AP-1 == old AP 4
AP-2 == old AP 3
AP-3 == old AP 2
AP-4 == old AP 1

I struggle to see how a return to the old system would help reduce lethality.

Marines would die like flies given how easy it is to get AP-2 (former AP3) and better. I guess termies would be more durable vs AP-2 (former AP3), but anything heavier would melt them.
   
Made in ca
Librarian with Freaky Familiar






 Tyran wrote:
Considering that using autocannon/missile launcher/lascannon/melta we can extrapolate the following equivalency:

AP-1 == old AP 4
AP-2 == old AP 3
AP-3 == old AP 2
AP-4 == old AP 1

I struggle to see how a return to the old system would help reduce lethality.

Marines would die like flies given how easy it is to get AP-2 (former AP3) and better. I guess termies would be more durable vs AP-2 (former AP3), but anything heavier would melt them.

A wapon that was AP 4 or 3 did not effect SV 3 or SV2, a -1 and a -2 do, to a great degree as well thats the major issue with the rending system on ranged weapons it allows weapons that previously were not designed to be anti heavy or anti vehicle operate in that way.
It drastically reduces the survivability of the SV 3 and 2 on common weapons thats the problem. You went from your line infantry having weapons that did not apply pressure to heavy infantry and vehicles able to now do that.

For example against Sv 2 ap 3 did nothing, you still got a sv 2+ a weapon that is -2 now turns a save that had a 16.7% chance to fail, into a save that has a 50% chance to fail. thats a massive reduction in survivability. Even a -1 ap weapon doubles the probability of a failure on a SV2.
Yet AP 3 still had its roll which was being anti armored infantry and you paied the points for bringing that AP3 weapon, you had to bring weapons that were deisgned to deal with AP2 heavy armored infantry, and you paid for it as well, rather then having cheap weapons that can effect everything.

The old system went squirlly because they gave out to much spamable AP 3 and 2, but inherently there was not an issue with the all or nothing AP system. The rending system at range is inherently flawed.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/07/05 03:30:43


To many unpainted models to count. 
   
Made in mx
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan




Mexico

 Backspacehacker wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
Considering that using autocannon/missile launcher/lascannon/melta we can extrapolate the following equivalency:

AP-1 == old AP 4
AP-2 == old AP 3
AP-3 == old AP 2
AP-4 == old AP 1

I struggle to see how a return to the old system would help reduce lethality.

Marines would die like flies given how easy it is to get AP-2 (former AP3) and better. I guess termies would be more durable vs AP-2 (former AP3), but anything heavier would melt them.

A wapon that was AP 4 or 3 did not effect SV 3 or SV2, a -1 and a -2 do, to a great degree as well thats the major issue with the rending system on ranged weapons it allows weapons that previously were not designed to be anti heavy or anti vehicle operate in that way.
It drastically reduces the survivability of the SV 3 and 2 on common weapons thats the problem. You went from your line infantry having weapons that did not apply pressure to heavy infantry and vehicles able to now do that.

For example against Sv 2 ap 3 did nothing, you still got a sv 2+ a weapon that is -2 now turns a save that had a 16.7% chance to fail, into a save that has a 50% chance to fail. thats a massive reduction in survivability. Even a -1 ap weapon doubles the probability of a failure on a SV2.


On the other side of the spectrum, I do not need Ap-2 to threaten Sv3 or Sv2. I have Exocrines, venom cannons, rupture cannons (AP -3 and -4 weapons)

With your suggestion, I would go from forcing Marines to save on 5+ or 6s to simply deleting them.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 Tyran wrote:
Considering that using autocannon/missile launcher/lascannon/melta we can extrapolate the following equivalency:

AP-1 == old AP 4
AP-2 == old AP 3
AP-3 == old AP 2
AP-4 == old AP 1

I struggle to see how a return to the old system would help reduce lethality.

Marines would die like flies given how easy it is to get AP-2 (former AP3) and better. I guess termies would be more durable vs AP-2 (former AP3), but anything heavier would melt them.


Bolded for emphasis. The old system generally makes elite infantry more durable and chaff infantry less durable, but only so long as AP3 or better isn't handed out like candy, and it's clear that the modifier system made it easier to give out bonuses without considering the consequences. For example, I doubt under the old system GW would have decided that basic Marines ought to have easy access to AP3 on their basic rifles, let alone AP2 for the rifles of a basic Troops choice. Under the old system, but with old AP values too, you'll get to roll a lot more 2+ and 3+ saves.

And sure, you could roll back the AP creep while keeping the modifier system. But Marines have died like flies for the entirety of 8th and 9th because high-volume mid-strength weapons that wouldn't have touched their save in prior editions now have a noticeable effect. Even just AP-1 increases damage against a 3+ save by 50%, and outright doubles effectiveness against a 2+ save.

The modifier system makes it such that any AP greatly reduces the value of good armor. It's currently exacerbated by virtually everything heavier than a lasgun having non-zero AP, be it from weapon buffs or faction mechanics, but the underlying issue is still there. Really what GW doesn't seem to realize is that the value of AP modifiers is logarithmic, not linear. AP-1 is a lot better than AP0, but GW treats it like a minor buff, while AP-4 isn't that much more useful than AP-2, but GW treats it like a significant upgrade.

In order for the AP modifier system to work in a game where the most commonly-played infantry and virtually all vehicles have a 3+ save, the majority of weapons need to be AP0, with AP-1 (again, a 50% increase in effectiveness) reserved for things that have some credible anti-armor capability, and then AP-2 to AP-4 reserved for actual anti-tank weapons. But along the same lines, you probably need to rebalance saves as well, because a Guardsman's 5+ is way more valuable in 8th/9th than it was in 3rd-7th, and I think that would again become apparent when they start getting to roll saves again.

The overall point is that the modifier system represented a massive change to a core mechanic, and the fact that you can neatly draw up a correlation between old AP values and new AP modifiers (while saves remained completely unchanged) shows that GW half-assed it without considering the broader implications. The escalation of AP over time has only made it worse. I think you could salvage the modifier system, and I never was a fan of all-or-nothing as a concept, but the old system certainly was less lethal for heavy infantry than what we have now and you'd need a pretty significant redesign to make AP modifiers 'work'.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/05 04:25:22


   
Made in mx
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan




Mexico

On the other hand, the old system was inherently more lethal for medium and light infantry.

Half the time Sv4 was useless, and I think guardsmen only got to use their flak armor against other guardsmen.

A return to the old system would feel like sacrifing light infantry in the name of Power Armor, which also isn't a good look.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/05 04:45:36


 
   
Made in us
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks






your mind

Thanks for the discussion. I appreciate most everything said here, especially BSH’s recounting of the series of adjustments that got us to where I read that plasma and bolters should be lumped together cuz plaz isn’t worth a different roll.

I wonder if the troubles might be mitigated by making E.g. snots and grots T1, eldar and mon-key T2, orks and nid warriors T3, basically use lower T values to make us of lower S values …so maybe las and pistols are S2, bolters and shotguns 3, plasma and heavy bolters 4… something like that.

.?

   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dark Angels Dreadnought





I totally disagree with the statement that armies now live or die by their invulns. AOC has made the discussion relevant of whether invulns are even necessary on many units, especially at the additional cost.
It certainly has changed the dynamic of certain choices, especially in the low AP arena (-1 and -2). However, not all opponents will have AOC so ditching AP-1 weapons as worthless may not be a great strategy.
IMHO it’s nice to see 3+ save actually mean something.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 bullyboy wrote:
I totally disagree with the statement that armies now live or die by their invulns. AOC has made the discussion relevant of whether invulns are even necessary on many units, especially at the additional cost.
It certainly has changed the dynamic of certain choices, especially in the low AP arena (-1 and -2). However, not all opponents will have AOC so ditching AP-1 weapons as worthless may not be a great strategy.
IMHO it’s nice to see 3+ save actually mean something.

Agreed. Storm Shields are now fairly useless given that you need at least AP-3 before the advantage of the 4++ comes into play. Even then, cover can mitigate that so you need -4 before the SS is worth it on power armoured marines. Terminators now need to get hit by AP-5 before their 5++ become relevant. Personally, I've already dropped a lot of SS from my Deathwatch due to AoC.
   
Made in gb
Slaanesh Chosen Marine Riding a Fiend





On the topic of plasma guns / cannons / pistols - anyone else an old fart like me who remembers back in 1998 when GW had a plasma weapon armistice? It was even advertised in their stores because plasma had become so prevelant.

Bit of nostalgia there.

Please note, for those of you who play Chaos Daemons as a faction the term "Daemon" is potentially offensive. Instead, please play codex "Chaos: Mortally Challenged". Thank you. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




I'm failing to see how rending is inherently flawed. Both systems have the issue that GW loves power creep (and in turn, the various factions cry out for it, because no one wants to be left behind.)
   
Made in ca
Librarian with Freaky Familiar






Tyel wrote:
I'm failing to see how rending is inherently flawed. Both systems have the issue that GW loves power creep (and in turn, the various factions cry out for it, because no one wants to be left behind.)


Because the rending system applies its effects to everything rather then needing to bring dedicated weaponry to deal with what it was intended to deal with.

Before you payed for AP3 weapons because AP3 weapons where anti armored infantry(3+), but they did not do anything to a heavy armored infantry (2+), you had to bring an answer to 2+ armor. You had to bring weapons that were deisghed, pointed, and restricted in some cases to specific units or number of them.

The current system you just spam as much ap -1 and -2 as you can because you get basically the law of averages in effect where you try and alter the save enough to eventually just wipe a unit off the board.

Earlier example, because a weapon that was AP 3 did not effect Sv 2, now a weapon that is ap -1 doubled your chance to fail on a 2+ save. Gws "Fix" to this was just to slap AoC on things and go hey look its fixed rather then addressing the core issue. HH right now does it hands down the best i have seen so far between the old system, and the rending system. AP2 and 3 are rare but rending and breaching are much more common on weapons.

To many unpainted models to count. 
   
Made in us
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan




Mexico

HH has the advantage of being an all Marine game.

The old system is better for powered infantry, but it wasn't a particular fun system for lighter infantry when pretty much everything in the game just ignored their armor.

I mean, the fact that the debate about AP is always around Marine saves rather than GEQs or WEQs is telling.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/07/05 15:15:49


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




But I don't see how that's an inherent problem.

I mean in the old editions you often didn't "spam" AP2 to deal with things like Terminators - because AP2 was relatively rare - being big heavy guns, or some usually character locked close combat options. Instead you just hit them with a bunch of AP- (or AP5, whatever) knowing that every 1 your opponent rolled was a dead terminator.

Ultimately the question is "what value is a 2+ or 3+ save worth". Clearly its worth more in a game system where most attacks are AP- than one where essentially every attack is AP-1, and an awful lot are better. But its still just a points calculation. There's no inherent issue.
   
Made in ca
Librarian with Freaky Familiar






 Tyran wrote:
HH has the advantage of being an all Marine game.

The old system is better for powered infantry, but it wasn't a particular fun system for lighter infantry when pretty much everything in the game just ignored their armor.

I mean, the fact that the debate about AP is always around Marine saves rather than GEQs or WEQs is telling.



its always around marines because weather we like it or not, the marine stat line is the stat line the game is/should be balanced around.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote:
But I don't see how that's an inherent problem.

I mean in the old editions you often didn't "spam" AP2 to deal with things like Terminators - because AP2 was relatively rare - being big heavy guns, or some usually character locked close combat options. Instead you just hit them with a bunch of AP- (or AP5, whatever) knowing that every 1 your opponent rolled was a dead terminator.

Ultimately the question is "what value is a 2+ or 3+ save worth". Clearly its worth more in a game system where most attacks are AP- than one where essentially every attack is AP-1, and an awful lot are better. But its still just a points calculation. There's no inherent issue.


The inherent problem becomes rather then bringing the right to to the job, you just bring sheer weight of fire to win the fight. AoC was/is the bandaid fix to that problem, where rather then bringing wepaons that were designed to kill heavy armored infentry, you just go with weight of fire of cheaper -1 ap weapons or -2 ap weapons. Thats the problem because access to AP -1 and -2 is so horribly abundant. Its like rather then bringing a drill to set a screw you just use a hammer instead.

AoC is evident that the its a problem because GW is having to go outta their way to negate the easy to spam ap -1 of the game rather then just addressing the rending AP in general. It created a needless problem that.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/05 15:24:38


To many unpainted models to count. 
   
Made in us
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan




Mexico

 Backspacehacker wrote:

its always around marines because weather we like it or not, the marine stat line is the stat line the game is/should be balanced around.

See, I hate that game philosophy regarding 40k.

It is an admittance that non-marine factions not only will never be balanced, but shouldn't be balanced.
   
Made in ca
Librarian with Freaky Familiar






 Tyran wrote:
 Backspacehacker wrote:

its always around marines because weather we like it or not, the marine stat line is the stat line the game is/should be balanced around.

See, I hate that game philosophy regarding 40k.

It is an admittance that non-marine factions not only will never be balanced, but shouldn't be balanced.


Not really its just the hub that other factions are balanced around, they have to have a base line to go off of and it makes sense that its marines.
If you are upset that marines are the focus and balance point of a game that was popularized by marines then, im not sure what to tell you at that point because you then are never going to be happy with the game at that point.

To many unpainted models to count. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Backspacehacker wrote:
The inherent problem becomes rather then bringing the right to to the job, you just bring sheer weight of fire to win the fight. AoC was/is the bandaid fix to that problem, where rather then bringing wepaons that were designed to kill heavy armored infentry, you just go with weight of fire of cheaper -1 ap weapons or -2 ap weapons. Thats the problem because access to AP -1 and -2 is so horribly abundant. Its like rather then bringing a drill to set a screw you just use a hammer instead.

AoC is evident that the its a problem because GW is having to go outta their way to negate the easy to spam ap -1 of the game rather then just addressing the rending AP in general. It created a needless problem that.


I don't think this is right though. Because AoC doesn't just effect AP-1 (although it does the most) - it also impacts AP-2, AP-3 etc.

Marines have not been getting cut down by massed AP-1. Its instead the S5+ AP-3 2 damage style attacks that go through them like butter. Usually with stacked rerolls or other cumulative buffs.
Its these attacks - like AP3 in older editions - that is far too cheap and plentiful. But equally, if Marines are the army to build against, you need such in a codex, and people will reach for it because their low S AP- does nothing.
   
Made in ca
Librarian with Freaky Familiar






Tyel wrote:
 Backspacehacker wrote:
The inherent problem becomes rather then bringing the right to to the job, you just bring sheer weight of fire to win the fight. AoC was/is the bandaid fix to that problem, where rather then bringing wepaons that were designed to kill heavy armored infentry, you just go with weight of fire of cheaper -1 ap weapons or -2 ap weapons. Thats the problem because access to AP -1 and -2 is so horribly abundant. Its like rather then bringing a drill to set a screw you just use a hammer instead.

AoC is evident that the its a problem because GW is having to go outta their way to negate the easy to spam ap -1 of the game rather then just addressing the rending AP in general. It created a needless problem that.


I don't think this is right though. Because AoC doesn't just effect AP-1 (although it does the most) - it also impacts AP-2, AP-3 etc.

Marines have not been getting cut down by massed AP-1. Its instead the S5+ AP-3 2 damage style attacks that go through them like butter. Usually with stacked rerolls or other cumulative buffs.
Its these attacks - like AP3 in older editions - that is far too cheap and plentiful. But equally, if Marines are the army to build against, you need such in a codex, and people will reach for it because their low S AP- does nothing.


-1 is just the easiest example to show how its negating an entire ap bracket. but aoc still shows that hte AP system is inflecting such lethality because its reducing save values. Its needless and creating bandaid fixes like AoC, while leaving every other armor without it out in the cold, save for guard who get it now on their vehicles. So again, gw is slapping AoC onto things to try and fix the problem rather then just go back to the old AP system that forced you to bring the right tools for the right job, provided that they dont make the spaming of AP2 so prevalent.

Because ill not pretend that everythign was perfect in the old system because easy access to AP 2 was a massive issue, but the cutting back on the access to AP 2 for cheap is a LOT easier to address then trying to balance a weapon that can inflect armor modification across all armor saves.

To many unpainted models to count. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: