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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/07 16:53:52
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Ridin' on a Snotling Pump Wagon
|
How do!
An open Oldhammer topic, about one of my bugbears introduced with 3rd Ed. As per the title, it’s the AP System.
In practice, I loathed it utterly. Having cut my teeth on 2nd Ed, going to “all or nothing” when it came to armour saves didn’t sit right with me at all. And thanks to Forum Advice, people quickly tried to shoehorn in as much high (low? Hmm) AP weapons as they could, forgoing more middling, or those at the other end of the spectrum. And so it felt like it reduced army variety.
For instance, and I have to pick on someone, but it’s not personal, Eldar. Other than points? Why on earth would you take a Shuriken Cannon or Scatter Laser over a Starcannon where you had a choice in the matter? And the Starcannon’s ubiquity against Infantry and Monsters of all types saw the Bright Lance rule over the Eldar Missile Launcher.
Close Combat was even worse on the binary Save or No Save (I said Save, Edmonds. Back in your hole!), as unless you were packing a Power Weapon, your opponent got an unmodified save. At least at first. I think around….6th we started to see AP on different melee weapons.
It also impacted other things, where AP4 was just….kind of a waste. It gave no perk against vehicles, and given the most common saves were 5+ or 3+, it felt just a bit too niche to me.
But this is all just my opinion, perspective and hazy memory. And as is healthy, I’m looking to challenge myself here. The topic is binary by wording, but I’m open to other, in the middle views as well.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/07 17:17:48
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
UK
|
"poor implementation" can be used to describe a lot of gw mechanical approaches to games. They often have good ideas, but then either go overboard with them; balance them poorly or abandon them at the end of an edition just when they were getting the hang of them.
In my view one problem with AP systems is its only a limit in one direction. And AP3 weapon is superior to an AP2 because anything the AP2 can hurt the AP3 can hurt equally as well; whilst it can also hurt things the AP2 can't or can't hurt as well.
Now normally this just means that you make the higher AP cost more; but you "have" to take them because high armour units are going to be present in armies and they are going to be tanks and heavy vehicles/monsters that also have high health. So not only do your high AP weapons have to be present; but they have to hit hard too.
So suddenly low armour targets and low AP weapons start to lose importance.
In practice low AP should be massed infantry so having high AP weapons with few attacks but high damage should work out as the damage can't spread to other models in the targeted squad.
However Warhammer has loads of elite units and solo models that are low AP but still not the ideal target for a high AP weapon.
A sliding scale would also work - having high AP weapons be less effective to low armour targets would make low and no AP weapons more viable choices against softer targets without weakening the high AP options. It also doesn't mean you can't use them on those targets (so you don't end up with the early air/anti-air issue of being locked out of hurting a specific target if you don't take the perfect counter)
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/07 17:51:09
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Witch Hunter in the Shadows
|
It was fast and decisive, and put a large split between the save groups... but was reliant on pricing/availability and quantity of cover.
And GW just threw a whole lot of cheap, high strength AP2 weapons out there from day one.
I'm not sure that overall lethality was actually higher for marines facing a hail of 5+ saves rather than mostly 3+ with some no-saves in the mix, but with the binary save system you certainly noticed it more.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/07 18:24:56
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Oozing Plague Marine Terminator
|
The old AP system made everything that wasn't Ap2 or Ap1 pretty much irrelevant, not only against marines because every faction had something with better Armor than 5+ or 4+. Of course there were also other factors like numbers of shots or Strength (Autocannons come to mind because of their multipurpose role, or assault cannons because of their rate of fire), but usually the weapons with Ap2 and 1 also had some bonus against vehicles making them good or usable against everything.
Ap3 in theory wasn't bad as well, but there were few weapons with it. The infamous Heldrake comes to mind.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2025/01/07 18:26:13
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/07 18:31:20
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard
|
Sgt. Cortez wrote:The old AP system made everything that wasn't Ap2 or Ap1 pretty much irrelevant, not only against marines because every faction had something with better Armor than 5+ or 4+. Of course there were also other factors like numbers of shots or Strength (Autocannons come to mind because of their multipurpose role, or assault cannons because of their rate of fire), but usually the weapons with Ap2 and 1 also had some bonus against vehicles making them good or usable against everything.
Ap3 in theory wasn't bad as well, but there were few weapons with it. The infamous Heldrake comes to mind.
It was the extremes. AP2 and AP- 3rd was also the edition where you killed Terminators by death to a thousand flashlights. You either buried the armor, or you flooded the zone so the sheer weight of numbers won too.
|
My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/07 18:47:45
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Witch Hunter in the Shadows
|
Sgt. Cortez wrote:The old AP system made everything that wasn't Ap2 or Ap1 pretty much irrelevant,
Three AP- wounds were the equal of one AP2 wound against a MEQ out of cover, and by 5e the game was pushing quite a bit of 4+ cover (bad idea in retrospect) and 3+ invulnerables.
You had to roll to wound of course which is where a lot of the poor AP weapons fell away but for something like an assault squad jumping in with bolt and plasma pistols it wasn't unreasonable for the small stuff to be half or more of your kills.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/07 18:55:23
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Overread wrote:"poor implementation" can be used to describe a lot of gw mechanical approaches to games. They often have good ideas, but then either go overboard with them; balance them poorly or abandon them at the end of an edition just when they were getting the hang of them.
In my view one problem with AP systems is its only a limit in one direction. And AP3 weapon is superior to an AP2 because anything the AP2 can hurt the AP3 can hurt equally as well; whilst it can also hurt things the AP2 can't or can't hurt as well.
??
Isn't Doc talking about AP in 3rd-7th ed?
AP3 is NOT superior to AP2 in those editions. Nor in Heresy.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/07 19:09:25
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Binary systems are pretty fundamentally flawed. I don't think there's a way to implement the old system that results in something better than what we have now.
Really though, any system built on a D6 is going to have issues. 5+ being twice as effective as 6+ is an awful curve as is the obvious issues with 1+ and even 2+ making 3/4/5 the only "good" values to work with. It's not useless and what we have now works pretty well, but you're always going to run into issues of diversity with such a small usable range.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/07 19:11:54
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Ridin' on a Snotling Pump Wagon
|
A.T. mentioned Assault Marines.
They, and Striking Scorpions, are to me good examples of the game being on the wonk.
Most of your models would have Stick and Pistol, with no difference between your Stick, and my Stick. Both would grant the foe their full armour save.
But, Vet Sarge and Exarch could typically pack something a bit hittier, like a Powerfist or Scorpion’s Claw. And they did your really reliable damage, regardless of who or what you were duffing up. This left the feeling that the rest of the squad were really just ablative wounds in a Powerfist Delivery System.
Contrast with the preceding system. Whilst Scorpions were stuck with their Ritual Gear, they could at least Parry, giving them a real edge against bog standard infantry, as you were more likely to win a given fight. And the Chainswords alone made your Scorpions S4. Assault Marines could have a lot of upgrades. Power Swords, Power Axes, Plasma Pistols, Power Fists, Hand Flamers. Points intensive, yes. But made for a pretty Killy squad provided you had at least some discretion in what you tried to beat up.
And so the AP system really made combat a bit boring. Any squad with all Power Weapons were just inherently more reliable, as they negated armour saves entirely. Everyone else had a tooled up squad leader, with his mates just there to catch bullets.
That for me fundamentally changed the feel of the game.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/07 19:18:18
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Posts with Authority
|
That's why I personally prefer dice pool based resolution mechanics rather than straight 1 on 1 rolls. Distribution curve is a bit more predictable
|
"The larger point though, is that as players, we have more control over what the game looks and feels like than most of us are willing to use in order to solve our own problems" |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/07 21:32:48
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Witch Hunter in the Shadows
|
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:This left the feeling that the rest of the squad were really just ablative wounds in a Powerfist Delivery System.
That is 3e onwards compared to 2e and earlier though - 3rd edition was all about units as an entity, a 10 man unit was very much like a 10 wound model with a degrading profile.
2e and rogue trader were grouped individuals where you moved as a group, shot sometimes as a group, and fought alone - a squad of ten marines charged by 20 orks triggered up to 20 individual combat rounds.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/07 23:33:18
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare
|
A.T. wrote:It was fast and decisive, and put a large split between the save groups... but was reliant on pricing/availability and quantity of cover.
And GW just threw a whole lot of cheap, high strength AP2 weapons out there from day one.
I agree with the first part, but not the second. Imo GW overdid the AP prevalence in 5th edition, but for 3rd -4th it worked great with only a couple problem examples. (Starcannons should have been priced higher, and Choppas should have been -1, not auto-drop to 4+ save.)
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/07 23:46:00
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle
|
I prefer the binary system to the modifier system. Is that nostalgia talking? Probably.
That said! I do think modifiers have a place even in the binary system. Make a rule, High Impact [X] or whatever you want to call it. X is a penalty applied to armor save rolls made against this weapon.
So a Heavy 3 S5 AP4 Heavy Bolter hitting on a 3+ does 4/9ths a wound to MEQ.
A Heavy 2 S7 AP4 High Impact [1] hitting on a 3+ Autocannon does 5/9ths.
A Power Weapon (which I am fine being a generic profile-Axes, Swords, and Mauls don't REALLY need differentiation) could be S:User or S:+1 AP3 High Impact [1].
|
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/07 23:58:50
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Noise Marine Terminator with Sonic Blaster
|
As someone that also started at the start of 2nd, I preferred the binary system of 3rd etc.
In 2nd, MEQ saves were regularly and easily reduced to 5+/6+ or even negated. Nothing about armour modifiers ever made MEQs feel like MEQs.
(29 Orks with Autocannons, 1SD, -3 Sv lolwut).
I can see the PoV regarding combats feeling like pillowfights under the binary system though.
|
Ex-Mantic Rules Committees: Kings of War, Warpath
"The Emperor is obviously not a dictator, he's a couch."
Starbuck: "Why can't we use the starboard launch bays?"
Engineer: "Because it's a gift shop!" |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/08 00:04:58
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle
|
Baragash wrote:As someone that also started at the start of 2nd, I preferred the binary system of 3rd etc.
In 2nd, MEQ saves were regularly and easily reduced to 5+/6+ or even negated. Nothing about armour modifiers ever made MEQs feel like MEQs.
(29 Orks with Autocannons, 1SD, -3 Sv lolwut).
I can see the PoV regarding combats feeling like pillowfights under the binary system though.
That last bit, I would say, relates a lot to the default being MEQ.
If GEQ were the most common infantry in the game, it wouldn't be so bad.
|
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/08 00:05:52
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
there's nothing wrong with a binary system if it's implemented correctly.
And by correctly, I mean looking at the game as a whole and genericising the AP concept, rather than giving each weapon an ap value as part of its stats.
Standard infantry weapons shouldn't have had any ap, that should have been a special rule for heavy and special weapons.
Armour saves could have been split between light (4+, 5+, 6+) and heavy (2+, 3+).
You then have rules like:
Anti Personnel - this weapon ignores light armour saves.
Anti Tank - this weapon ignores heavy and light armour saves.
With another rule called Penetrator (X), where the enemy's save is reduced by X, but this would be for special weapons, rules or situations.
The game is much easier to balance when your save ignoring abilities come from individual weapons rather than whole squads. Especially when you've defaulted standard rifles to ignoring standard armour, it becomes silly then.
A 5+ save already incorporates it's lack of protection into its low value, AP5 is just additional punishment for no good reason.
AP weapons
flamers
heavy bolters
shuriken cannons
autocannons
big shootas
(low ap weapons like multi lasers, heavy stubbers and scatter lasers would just allow saves as normal).
AT weapons
Lascannons
plasma guns
melta guns
starcannons
railguns
etc.
your effectiveness at destroying vehicles is reflected by Strength anyway - a S6 starcannon was no good at killing a tank, but light vehicles were ok.
There are a range of things you could do to the mechanics beyond this, like giving vehicles armour saves.
Your mechanics shouldn't have a core stat ignored most of the time because you've calibrated a different value to do so. Start with saves and any manipulation of them is the exception not the rule.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote:I prefer the binary system to the modifier system. Is that nostalgia talking? Probably.
That said! I do think modifiers have a place even in the binary system. Make a rule, High Impact [X] or whatever you want to call it. X is a penalty applied to armor save rolls made against this weapon.
So a Heavy 3 S5 AP4 Heavy Bolter hitting on a 3+ does 4/9ths a wound to MEQ.
A Heavy 2 S7 AP4 High Impact [1] hitting on a 3+ Autocannon does 5/9ths.
A Power Weapon (which I am fine being a generic profile-Axes, Swords, and Mauls don't REALLY need differentiation) could be S:User or S:+1 AP3 High Impact [1].
Baragash wrote:As someone that also started at the start of 2nd, I preferred the binary system of 3rd etc.
In 2nd, MEQ saves were regularly and easily reduced to 5+/6+ or even negated. Nothing about armour modifiers ever made MEQs feel like MEQs.
(29 Orks with Autocannons, 1SD, -3 Sv lolwut).
I can see the PoV regarding combats feeling like pillowfights under the binary system though.
But you're showing the bias again - it's all about MEQs. When more than half the armies aren't MEQs and their stats are screwed by the system. If the only advantage you can point to is measuring against marines, it's not an advantage for the GAME, but for one faction that skews the mechanics. This is why it works in HH, when your system favours 3+ saves, it's easier to use when most model HAVE 3+ saves.
3rd ed played fine when it was marine on marine, because their basic weapons didn't ignore each other's armour.
It's like arguing that the Leadership and breaking rules are great and work perfectly because your 100% fearless army is unaffected by it.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2025/01/08 00:14:54
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/08 01:38:37
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Ridin' on a Snotling Pump Wagon
|
Baragash wrote:As someone that also started at the start of 2nd, I preferred the binary system of 3rd etc.
In 2nd, MEQ saves were regularly and easily reduced to 5+/6+ or even negated. Nothing about armour modifiers ever made MEQs feel like MEQs.
(29 Orks with Autocannons, 1SD, -3 Sv lolwut).
I can see the PoV regarding combats feeling like pillowfights under the binary system though.
Trouble there is said 29 Orks with Autocannon were pretty points intensive, comprised multiple Mobs, and suffered the then standard Orky deficiency if not much of a save, and middling at best Leadership,
In 2nd Ed, Marines felt like Marines through sheer squad efficiency. Every stat was above average except for movement. Their armour and standard small arms were above average. Their equipment options were solid. They could Combat Squad. Their Dreadnoughts were arguably the best in the game, and their Tanks were no slouches, again thanks to above average Ballistic Skill and typically the guns to make that count - which also came with Targetters.
And they still got their save, of some value, longer than most other armies. Guard, Eldar, Orks, Tyranids all tended, with the odd exception, to cap out at 4+, the majority being 5+ or 6+.
Also on the squad claimed? Presumably Deathskulls Mob. Which came 3-10 strong. And with all Autocannon, cost a pretty 28 points a pop. For reference, a standard Marine was 30 points, had superior stats barring a tied Toughness, and a 3+ save compared to the Deathskulls 6+ Flak Armour.
So, 29 models at 28 points? Is a minimum of three Mobs, and 812 points worth of models. And they’d die to a stiff breeze thanks to no armour worth worrying about. So, Potent, sure. But also having to take on equal points of Marines in little more than T-Shirt and good wishes. Get those Marines in Hard Cover, and you’re hitting me on a 6+, with one in six firing no shots due to Jam on Sustained Fire. Not exactly as fearsome as you painted it. Or a more direct Heavy Support Squad? Marjorie, bring me my Devastators with as many Heavy Bolters as possible, and we’ll show these blighters who’s wearing the finest fighting pantaloons.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/08 05:12:17
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Confessor Of Sins
|
Interesting concepts you have here that can be pressed even further.
Hellebore wrote:there's nothing wrong with a binary system if it's implemented correctly.
And by correctly, I mean looking at the game as a whole and genericising the AP concept, rather than giving each weapon an ap value as part of its stats.
Standard infantry weapons shouldn't have had any ap, that should have been a special rule for heavy and special weapons.
Armour saves could have been split between light (4+, 5+, 6+) and heavy (2+, 3+).
You then have rules like:
Anti Personnel - this weapon ignores light armour saves.
Anti Tank - this weapon ignores heavy and light armour saves.
With another rule called Penetrator (X), where the enemy's save is reduced by X, but this would be for special weapons, rules or situations.
If you define models as having Light or Heavy armor, you can actually use more save values in both categories. Heavy 4+ armor would still get a save against Anti-Personal while Light 4+ armor would not. Imagine the possibilities!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/08 05:52:04
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Fresh-Faced New User
|
Baragash wrote:As someone that also started at the start of 2nd, I preferred the binary system of 3rd etc.
In 2nd, MEQ saves were regularly and easily reduced to 5+/6+ or even negated. Nothing about armour modifiers ever made MEQs feel like MEQs.
(29 Orks with Autocannons, 1SD, -3 Sv lolwut).
I can see the PoV regarding combats feeling like pillowfights under the binary system though.
That was a design and calibration issue, not a mechanic issue.
Lasguns shouldn't have had a -1 save modifier. Shuriken catapults shouldn't have had a -2 save modifier.
Boltguns with a -1 save mod and heavy bolters with -2 seemed about right.
A BS3 Ork being equipped with the main turret gun of a Predator for +16 points is pretty questionable.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2025/01/08 05:53:43
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/08 06:43:19
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare
|
Oktoglokk wrote: Baragash wrote:As someone that also started at the start of 2nd, I preferred the binary system of 3rd etc.
In 2nd, MEQ saves were regularly and easily reduced to 5+/6+ or even negated. Nothing about armour modifiers ever made MEQs feel like MEQs.
(29 Orks with Autocannons, 1SD, -3 Sv lolwut).
I can see the PoV regarding combats feeling like pillowfights under the binary system though.
That was a design and calibration issue, not a mechanic issue.
Lasguns shouldn't have had a -1 save modifier. Shuriken catapults shouldn't have had a -2 save modifier.
Boltguns with a -1 save mod and heavy bolters with -2 seemed about right.
A BS3 Ork being equipped with the main turret gun of a Predator for +16 points is pretty questionable.
I think these notions of "balance" hearken back to the ol' "How do you think Marines should fight"?
Because the Save modifiers in the 2nd ed context meant that if you actually hit your opponent in cover, then you're likely do do something, and if you catch your opponent out of cover, it's bad news for them. But those few, elite Marines could be standing and rapid firing from Hard Cover in 2nd (-2 to hit), in which case your Guardsmen or Guardians in a firefight are only hitting them on 6s. If you nerf the Lasguns and Catapults, then it becomes even more of an uphill battle for them. (not to mention all the potential non- MEQ disadvantages regarding chemical warfare, grenade throwing, Ld. etc).
But of course if you expect your Marines to just wade through enemy firepower out in the open, then you might think those -1s and -2s are just too lethal for those Marines.
To compare 2nd to 3rd+, you really really have to take into account the larger context of potential modifiers or other avenues of Marine advantages. Remember that cover didn't help Marines at all against small arms in 3rd-7th. It's a huge difference in troop behavioral expectation between the two.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/08 07:20:46
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Krazed Killa Kan
|
I think the old AP system of all or nothing was superior to the save modifications of newer editions due mostly to how it paired with cover saves. The current type of system just rewards more AP as it defeats any sort of defense besides invuln saves/FNP while the old AP system was about finding the right targets for the weapons. You didn't want to waste AP2 vs somebody with cardboard armor as it was usually exceptionally expensive (note: GW messed this up with certain AP2 weapons) while throwing AP4 against 3+ was inefficient usage of firepower. Having cover changed the dynamic as that AP2 plasma weapon that could melt marine armor is only resulting in a 4+ save but shooting those scouts in the open who normally have 4+ saves might be the more cost effective decision. The battlefield conditions changed the math on what was the optimal choice and then it of course got muddied more with regards to threat assessments and clearing objectives.
When points balanced was roughly decent you got these sweet spots where certain weapons shined and other spots where they fell off terribly or ended up being so cheap that they could become decent at brute forcing saves. Of course it also breaks down when it's too easy to have ignores cover applied to AP2 weapons (see 6th and 7th Tau or Eldar). Still, it was harder to have the optimized weapon selection that wins vs all types of infantry or vehicles/MCs. Again, stuff like Grav, cheap ignores cover AP2, psychic power buffs, Special rules stacking, etc could break this but that isn't a flaw with the older AP system but with GW's points and codex design decisions.
|
"Hold my shoota, I'm goin in"
Armies (7th edition points)
7000+ Points Death Skullz
4000 Points
+ + 3000 Points "The Fiery Heart of the Emperor"
3500 Points "Void Kraken" Space Marines
3000 Points "Bard's Booze Cruise" |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/08 10:57:27
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
I'm not sure the 3rd Edition AP/armour rules can be solved while players have agency over what they take or don't take.
I mean Starcannon Spam is a double edged sword. Yes, Marine players complained bitterly. But if all you ever found yourself playing was various different coloured space marines what were you going to take?
If you nerf Starcannons by upping the points - or other sources of AP3 - it likely just makes Eldar a bit worse - but now even more dependent on the AP3 they can still fit into their list. It isn't going to suddenly make all the units that can only tickle marines any better or more attractive.
I mean you can argue this is GW's fault for not forcing some TAC list with a range of AP and armour profiles. But if half the people I'm actually going to play are running armies of 3+ save models...? I'm hardly going to thank GW for making me bring models we both know are bad.
What this leads me to is the dangerous heresy that Marines shouldn't have been MEQ. If say Scouts were 5+ save, Tactical Marines 4+, "elite Marines" 3+, and Terminators 2+ - and you apply the same logic for other factions - then you might have got the diversity of armour profiles that would have justified it on weapon profiles. But that wasn't the case and you didn't.
Bring a lot of AP3 with a splash of AP2, and if you ran into someone running hordes of bodies you might be a bit sad but in a lot of editions these armies were functionally so bad you had good odds of winning anyway.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/08 11:21:11
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Ridin' on a Snotling Pump Wagon
|
I’m never going to be persuaded that AP and Cover Saves worked at all well.
Yes it encouraged thematic play to an extent, as when Marines only benefitted against high (low?) AP weapons, but everyone else effectively got an Invulnerable Save, it reduced player choice.
Of course, 2nd Ed was a much smaller scaled games. Even a 2,000 point army might comprise three dozen models, depending on army and loadout etc. And so you tended to have more time for working out modifiers to hit, wound and save. 3rd Ed had been streamlined to remove much of that. And I’m not necessarily arguing the removal was wrong.
But when a slew of armies just didn’t really benefit from cover? It felt wrong to my 2nd Ed obsessed mind. Especially when cover affected who fought first.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/08 11:24:46
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Witch Hunter in the Shadows
|
Tyel wrote:I mean Starcannon Spam is a double edged sword. Yes, Marine players complained bitterly. But if all you ever found yourself playing was various different coloured space marines what were you going to take?
AP2, long range, good strength and rapid fire for less points than a missile launcher - and available on every wave serpent at half cost and twinlinked.
Not just marine killers, they were a little too good against all elite targets. All the balance issues of the editions cheap plasma guns but firing from the far side of the board.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/08 11:30:27
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Ridin' on a Snotling Pump Wagon
|
Also not too shabby against side or rear armour. A weapon of true ubiquity. And one which broke the game.
Not because Eldar players are unimaginative or power gamey, but because the Star Cannon was just a no brainer compared to its stablemates.
Which I think is the biggest flaw of 3rd and others onwards. The binary approach of the AP system lead to every army having some kind of no brainer option. A weapon typically seen to the exclusion of others.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/08 12:37:41
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Sneaky Lictor
|
I played nids, mainly vs two marine players. I imagined them in cover, holding the line while blasting my hordes of approaching gribblies. In practice the marines just walked all over the board completely* ignoring terrain as all nid guns were ap4 at best** and couldn't penetrate their armor anyway. Meanwhile my hordes had to hug cover to be able to get a save at all. So I was absolutely thrilled when 8th reintroduced save modifiers (didn't last long, hah).
*except for the one or two squads near my genestealers, since stealers struck last when charging into cover and were glass cannons. But that's a rant for another day.
**except for the 1-2 psykers I brought with warp blast, although I mainly used it against vehicles
Edit: I absolutely adored plinking terminators to death with 10 fleshborer gaunt squads though
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2025/01/08 12:39:13
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/08 13:09:15
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Witch Hunter in the Shadows
|
shortymcnostrill wrote:I played nids, mainly vs two marine players. I imagined them in cover, holding the line while blasting my hordes of approaching gribblies
Probably for the best they didn't benefit from cover. Wouldn't have wanted 2+ save marines hiding behind walls all day.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/08 14:11:41
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
A.T. wrote:AP2, long range, good strength and rapid fire for less points than a missile launcher - and available on every wave serpent at half cost and twinlinked.
Not just marine killers, they were a little too good against all elite targets. All the balance issues of the editions cheap plasma guns but firing from the far side of the board.
Certainly true.
Although I'd probably argue in turn that missile launchers were systematically over-costed for most of the game. GW seemed to really overvalue "ah, you've run out of high value tanks/monsters to shoot with your worse bright lances/lascannons? Then you can... idk, pop a couple of guardsmen, that will add up."
I guess at least you might want to do this as the whole unit/tank could presumably shoot at such units, while its lighter guns were often wasted on vehicles.
I stand my view that you can argue it could be balanced, but you'd need to fundamentally change so much that it doesn't have much similarity to our 3rd-7th.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/08 14:40:30
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Ridin' on a Snotling Pump Wagon
|
In a less skewed reality of the system, Missile Launchers probably were worth their points on paper, precisely because they did provide a bit of everything. By no means the most efficient Anti-Tank or Anti-Personnel heavy weapon, sure. But still fairly capable in both roles, bringing the appeal of being unlikely to run out of worthwhile targets.
Certainly I found them of particular use against Nids, as outside of Extended Carapace, the Krak Missile’s AP3 was plenty for swatting big bugs, and the relatively lack of AP on a Frag Missile was less of an issue against Gaunts.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/08 14:44:42
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Witch Hunter in the Shadows
|
Tyel wrote:Although I'd probably argue in turn that missile launchers were systematically over-costed for most of the game
I'm not sure there was much of a system to it, save for a gradual reduction with each new book.
HBolt..Miss..Melta... Plas....Las
..15......30......35......35......35......3e SM
..15......20......20......35......35......4e SM
..15......15......15......25......35......5e SM
...5.......10......10......20......25......5e Wolves
..10......10......10......15......25......5e BA
..10......10......10......15......20......6e SM
|
|
 |
 |
|