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) 2025/01/10 19:50:51
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare
|
Wyldhunt wrote:
The thing that always got me about the old AP system was that good AP just wasn't even a factor if it wasn't good *enough* AP. So a krak missile (AP3) can cut through power armor like a knife through warm butter. But all that armor piercing power is exactly as effective as a lasgun or a cultist's naked fist agains slightly thicker/sturdier power armor (artificer armor, 2+). And a heavy flamer was so devastating (AP4) that dire avengers (Sv4+) may as well not be wearing armor at all, but their striking scorpion friends (sv3+) have a good chance of being completely unscathed by it.
As a fan of that system I definitely agree that this is the best critique against it.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/10 21:48:15
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
Annandale, VA
|
tauist wrote: catbarf wrote: RustyNumber wrote:So when do we crack into the " D6 is a gak base for a wargame" debate? Absolutely loving these in depth (and polite!) grognard discussions! I'll admit from a fluff standpoint flashlights being able to do anything to a tank is gak, as is flamethrowers being able to harm a SM.
The vast majority of wargames published in the history of wargaming have used D6s. I can name you plenty of modern systems that use D6s and have no need for other dice. D6s are fine.
40K's problem is implementation, and one of the factors directly relevant to this thread is GW making the baseline average profile one that saves on a 3+. In the all-or-nothing system, the prevalence of Marines made AP3 a magic breakpoint. In the modifier system, a single step better halves your incoming damage, a single step worse increases it by 50%.
Linear modifiers on individual dice have outsized impact in this environment that would not be nearly as problematic if the baseline was 4+ or 5+. Or simply folded into a more generic defensive stat, because the modeled distinction between Toughness, Wounds, and Save is now entirely arbitrary and in practice T and Sv are largely redundant to one another.
Are you sure about that?
It is my understanding that in a typical Warhammer game system, when it comes to shooting, the most prescious stat (after the amount of shots a weapon fires) is the to-hit roll number, followed by toughness, followed by save. This being because the dice pools are resolved in the shoot-wound-save order, and whichever comes first affects the amount of dice that get to the next stage the most.
Or is this because to wound roll values are dictated by the S-vs-T table, in which 1 pip +/- is not as significant as in the other two stages, which modulate linearly?
Order doesn't matter. Going from hitting on 5+ to hitting on 3+ doubles your damage. Forcing the target to save on 5+ instead of 3+ also doubles your damage. Same effect.
The reason the bonus to hit is more valuable is because going from hitting on 5+ to 3+ always doubles your damage output, while an extra two points of AP gets you nothing if the target has no armor to begin with.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/10 21:57:28
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
catbarf wrote: tauist wrote: catbarf wrote: RustyNumber wrote:So when do we crack into the " D6 is a gak base for a wargame" debate? Absolutely loving these in depth (and polite!) grognard discussions! I'll admit from a fluff standpoint flashlights being able to do anything to a tank is gak, as is flamethrowers being able to harm a SM.
The vast majority of wargames published in the history of wargaming have used D6s. I can name you plenty of modern systems that use D6s and have no need for other dice. D6s are fine.
40K's problem is implementation, and one of the factors directly relevant to this thread is GW making the baseline average profile one that saves on a 3+. In the all-or-nothing system, the prevalence of Marines made AP3 a magic breakpoint. In the modifier system, a single step better halves your incoming damage, a single step worse increases it by 50%.
Linear modifiers on individual dice have outsized impact in this environment that would not be nearly as problematic if the baseline was 4+ or 5+. Or simply folded into a more generic defensive stat, because the modeled distinction between Toughness, Wounds, and Save is now entirely arbitrary and in practice T and Sv are largely redundant to one another.
Are you sure about that?
It is my understanding that in a typical Warhammer game system, when it comes to shooting, the most prescious stat (after the amount of shots a weapon fires) is the to-hit roll number, followed by toughness, followed by save. This being because the dice pools are resolved in the shoot-wound-save order, and whichever comes first affects the amount of dice that get to the next stage the most.
Or is this because to wound roll values are dictated by the S-vs-T table, in which 1 pip +/- is not as significant as in the other two stages, which modulate linearly?
Order doesn't matter. Going from hitting on 5+ to hitting on 3+ doubles your damage. Forcing the target to save on 5+ instead of 3+ also doubles your damage. Same effect.
The reason the bonus to hit is more valuable is because going from hitting on 5+ to 3+ always doubles your damage output, while an extra two points of AP gets you nothing if the target has no armor to begin with.
This. And I believe that certain special rules (sustained hits) can make the order matter. But typically the order doesn't actually matter. Which is one of the reasons people can pitch that suggestion I hate of rolling saves before wound rolls. Mathematically, it doesn't change anything.
https://www.cuemath.com/numbers/commutative-property-of-multiplication/
|
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.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/11 02:51:54
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Fresh-Faced New User
|
Breton wrote:Oktoglokk wrote:Breton wrote:Bolt Rifles are -1 but its still too easy to use "Anti-Tank" as anti-Infantry. Plus they didn't really make the man-portable anti-tank anti-tanky enough. Combine that with too much emphasis on AP vs To Hit and/or To Wound and that's the flaw. Man Portable Anti-Tank should absolutely immolate a tank. It should also miss that single solitary dude over there by a country mile.
Man portable anti-tank should obliterate infantry. An anti-tank rocket or missile is way more effective against infantry than it is against a tank. The only thing acting in the infantry's favour is how dispersed they are. I've seen way too many body parts flying through the air to convince me otherwise.
Pretty sure that's part of what I just said? Man Portable Anti-Tank doesn't really immolate a tank anymore. Krak, Melta and so on until you get to Lascanon are probable too weak. But at the same time shooting the big guns at the little dude should miss by a country mile?
I interpreted "It should also miss that single solitary dude over there by a country mile." to mean an anti-tank weapon should be bad against infantry, which I disagree with.
A lascannon should have no problem hitting and killing a grot. But you wasted your lascannon shot on a grot.
I'm not super familiar with current 40K, but I think you should be able to kill or cripple a tank (leman russ, predator) with one good hit from an anti-tank weapon, and at least chip away a decent number of wounds.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/11 03:37:47
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Stalwart Tribune
Canada,eh
|
Wyldhunt wrote: Gibblets wrote:Fundamentally flawed all or nothing save system, big time. AP3 or better were the only meaningful weapon APs. You could get shot with a Multimelta BUT you were behind a piece of wood so you get a 4+ save, wtf? So my gun can melt through tanks but your marine happens to be behind some waving grass giving it a 4+ save ignoring your weapons profile that you paid for. With it being modifier based, cover starts being able to be factored in and the granularity gave more space for play. I'll never go back to the lazy feels bad of that all or nothing system.
Well, to play devil's advocate, cover saves were kind of implied to be largely about making it harder to draw a bead on your target. So it's not that the meltagun couldn't get through a tree. It's that your target dashed behind a tree as you pulled the trigger, but you didn't realize he'd actually dived into some bushes while he was out of your line of sight. So the tree is vaporized, and the marine would have been as well... if he were still standing there. That's why flamers ignored cover saves back in the day. The flames were hitting the tree, the space behind the tree, and the bushes near the tree all at once.
I understand that reasoning and had discussions about that in years gone. To me it would've (and still would be) been better represented as a BS modifier rather then a different type of save. Bushes, fences -1BS. Trees, concrete walls, trenches -2BS. Then there was the demon army of all invulns and FnPs complicating the AP/Cover system.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2025/01/11 03:40:14
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/11 04:05:27
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard
|
Oktoglokk wrote:
I interpreted "It should also miss that single solitary dude over there by a country mile." to mean an anti-tank weapon should be bad against infantry, which I disagree with.
A lascannon should have no problem hitting and killing a grot. But you wasted your lascannon shot on a grot.
I'm not super familiar with current 40K, but I think you should be able to kill or cripple a tank (leman russ, predator) with one good hit from an anti-tank weapon, and at least chip away a decent number of wounds.
Nah you interpreted it mostly correctly, we probably just disagree. If Creed gets hit by a lascanon, he should absolutely turn into steaming red mist. It should just be next to impossible to hit a man sized dude with something calibrated to shoot at giant Metal Bawkses. The trade off for supercharging the lasgun into a canon should be low accuracy against something as flighty as a human on foot.
|
My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/11 14:13:53
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Killer Klaivex
The dark behind the eyes.
|
Breton wrote:Oktoglokk wrote:
I interpreted "It should also miss that single solitary dude over there by a country mile." to mean an anti-tank weapon should be bad against infantry, which I disagree with.
A lascannon should have no problem hitting and killing a grot. But you wasted your lascannon shot on a grot.
I'm not super familiar with current 40K, but I think you should be able to kill or cripple a tank (leman russ, predator) with one good hit from an anti-tank weapon, and at least chip away a decent number of wounds.
Nah you interpreted it mostly correctly, we probably just disagree. If Creed gets hit by a lascanon, he should absolutely turn into steaming red mist. It should just be next to impossible to hit a man sized dude with something calibrated to shoot at giant Metal Bawkses. The trade off for supercharging the lasgun into a canon should be low accuracy against something as flighty as a human on foot.
I mean, one of the longstanding issues with 40k is that BS is a static stat. Yes, there are strats, auras and such that can modify it. But the point is that it is only ever modified by specific abilities.
It is never modified by the target or the range. So shooting a Land Raider at point-blank range is exactly as hard as shooting a Gretchin on the other side of the board, behind a forest and some ruins, with only his left elbow exposed.
If BS was matched with a target's Defence stat, and perhaps also affected by range (e.g. -1 to hit over half range), then it serve much more of a purpose and also give GW more levers to pull.
|
blood reaper wrote:I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote:Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote:GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
Andilus Greatsword wrote:
"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"
Akiasura wrote:I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.
insaniak wrote:
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/11 15:09:43
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard
|
vipoid wrote:Breton wrote:Oktoglokk wrote:
I interpreted "It should also miss that single solitary dude over there by a country mile." to mean an anti-tank weapon should be bad against infantry, which I disagree with.
A lascannon should have no problem hitting and killing a grot. But you wasted your lascannon shot on a grot.
I'm not super familiar with current 40K, but I think you should be able to kill or cripple a tank (leman russ, predator) with one good hit from an anti-tank weapon, and at least chip away a decent number of wounds.
Nah you interpreted it mostly correctly, we probably just disagree. If Creed gets hit by a lascanon, he should absolutely turn into steaming red mist. It should just be next to impossible to hit a man sized dude with something calibrated to shoot at giant Metal Bawkses. The trade off for supercharging the lasgun into a canon should be low accuracy against something as flighty as a human on foot.
I mean, one of the longstanding issues with 40k is that BS is a static stat. Yes, there are strats, auras and such that can modify it. But the point is that it is only ever modified by specific abilities.
It is never modified by the target or the range. So shooting a Land Raider at point-blank range is exactly as hard as shooting a Gretchin on the other side of the board, behind a forest and some ruins, with only his left elbow exposed.
If BS was matched with a target's Defence stat, and perhaps also affected by range (e.g. -1 to hit over half range), then it serve much more of a purpose and also give GW more levers to pull.
In the past it was modified by range. And yeah, I also think all the rolls should be contested which gives a lot more "range" on a D6. BS vs Initiative, WS vs WS, S v T, A vs AP. This lets Aeldari be hard to hit but (relatively) less likely to save to make them of similar durability just in a different more fluffy way. The Aircraft rules, and Vehicle changes even pave the way for the concept.
|
My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/11 19:51:30
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan
Mexico
|
Insectum7 wrote:I definitely have seen people enjoy their skew armies. And I've definitely enjoyed playing against them as they can offer a fresh or unexpected challenge. I recall fondly a player who showed up at our club with a 140+ model Ork army that was hard as **** to contend with, but trying to deal with it was a blast.
And on the other hand of the game, having to deal with 2+/5++ Paladin death star skew wasn't what I would call a blast.
But still taking your preference for skew into account, that is still limited by the issue saves are mostly faction bound. A Space Marine player cannot skew into light infantry as pretty much all Space Marines are 3+ or 2+ armor save aside of scouts. Orks have a similar issue with only meganobz having a 2+ and I don't recall them having access to 3+ saves.
And having to buy an entirely new army just to play a different type of armour save doesn't seem what I would call a rewarding choice.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/11 20:20:32
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Gibblets wrote:
I understand that reasoning and had discussions about that in years gone. To me it would've (and still would be) been better represented as a BS modifier rather then a different type of save. Bushes, fences -1BS. Trees, concrete walls, trenches -2BS. Then there was the demon army of all invulns and FnPs complicating the AP/Cover system.
Well, -1 BS under the old AP system would mean that it just doesn't make as big a difference as a 4+ cover save. Using the old all or nothing AP system, killing 10 guardsmen with bolters if cover was -1 to-hit instead of a 4+ save means you need:
10 wounds > 15 hits > 30 bolter attacks
Whereas having a 4+ cover save instead of -1 to-hit means you need
10 failed 4+ saves > 20 wounds > 30 hits > 45 attacks
And then if you grant larger to-hit penalties, you quickly get into those wonky issues of orks hitting on 7+, BS4+ units fishing for 6s against marines, etc. Heck, you kind of run into the marine issue even with -1 to-hit. Because you'd be landing fewer hits, but the attacks that did wound were still running into an unmodifiable 3+ save.
But I get how a to-hit penalty would be more intuitive.
vipoid wrote:Breton wrote:
I interpreted "It should also miss that single solitary dude over there by a country mile." to mean an anti-tank weapon should be bad against infantry, which I disagree with.
A lascannon should have no problem hitting and killing a grot. But you wasted your lascannon shot on a grot.
I'm not super familiar with current 40K, but I think you should be able to kill or cripple a tank (leman russ, predator) with one good hit from an anti-tank weapon, and at least chip away a decent number of wounds.
Nah you interpreted it mostly correctly, we probably just disagree. If Creed gets hit by a lascanon, he should absolutely turn into steaming red mist. It should just be next to impossible to hit a man sized dude with something calibrated to shoot at giant Metal Bawkses. The trade off for supercharging the lasgun into a canon should be low accuracy against something as flighty as a human on foot.
Respectfully, that's not how lascannons have ever really been depicted though. The trade-off isn't that their scopes or accuracy are bad. It's that the weapon is big, heavy, less available, and has a lower rate of fire. So it's not that aiming at a human-sized target is difficult. It's that you generally want to spend some time bracing the weapon before lining up that shot (Heavy rule) and that pointing the lascannon at some dude means you're pointing one of your army's few guns capable of scaring a tank at a lowly human.
And on the flip side of that, Creed has generally been protected by a crowd of bodies hanging out with him (character attachment/targeting rules) if not by cover itself. So you should have fewer opportunities to line that shot up with the lascannon in the first place. Because while it isn't a particularly inaccurate weapon, it's also not a sniper rifle.
And all of this is way more true for something like a meltagun. A meltagun is a short-ranged weapon. You can only be so bad at firing it. If you're standing a few yard away from Creed, the meltagun isn't going to buck in your hands and refuse to aim straight.
I mean, one of the longstanding issues with 40k is that BS is a static stat. Yes, there are strats, auras and such that can modify it. But the point is that it is only ever modified by specific abilities.
It is never modified by the target or the range. So shooting a Land Raider at point-blank range is exactly as hard as shooting a Gretchin on the other side of the board, behind a forest and some ruins, with only his left elbow exposed.
If BS was matched with a target's Defence stat, and perhaps also affected by range (e.g. -1 to hit over half range), then it serve much more of a purpose and also give GW more levers to pull.
I'd be all for working range and other factors into the game more. We sorta kinda have a nod to this in the form of the rapid fire rule (guns are more effective up close; less effective further away), but I could see GW taking it a few steps farther. Minimum range requirements for sniper rifles and artillery. Soft terrain like forests and fog clouds making units untargetable outside of X inches. Spotter units to offset some of those defenses. Etc.I feel like there's a lot of design realestate for getting rid of random Letha Hit type buffs and replacing them with more interesting rules that play into range, positioning, and trade-offs.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2025/01/11 20:26:07
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.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/11 20:34:34
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Killer Klaivex
The dark behind the eyes.
|
Tyran wrote: Insectum7 wrote:I definitely have seen people enjoy their skew armies. And I've definitely enjoyed playing against them as they can offer a fresh or unexpected challenge. I recall fondly a player who showed up at our club with a 140+ model Ork army that was hard as **** to contend with, but trying to deal with it was a blast.
And on the other hand of the game, having to deal with 2+/5++ Paladin death star skew wasn't what I would call a blast.
I don't know, I'd say it can be pretty fun - particularly if your army has a lot of models.
Green Tide or Infantry Guard would make for an especially fun quality vs. quantity game.
|
blood reaper wrote:I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote:Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote:GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
Andilus Greatsword wrote:
"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"
Akiasura wrote:I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.
insaniak wrote:
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/11 23:38:58
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
A.T. wrote:
Two 3e war walkers could on average take out an entire 3e terminator squad with their first shots on turn 1. Two units of two would wipe an entire ten man assault, devastator, or tactical squad off the board upgrades and all if they weren't in cover.
.
A 5 man devestator squad with 4 plasma cannons could do that for less points though and more reliably with bs4.
Insectum7 wrote:
I genuinely think that the balance is actually more subtle.
Which sounds like a flippant or obnoxious thing to say, but I think it's actually the case.
More than open to that being the case, I just don't really see examples of it.
A -1asm applies a 16% armour reduction to all targets ( which has different relative effects depending on the base save, although that should be factored into the relative cost of the armour.
AP applies a 0% armour reduction - until it applies a 100% armour reduction.
One is easier to cost out and balance than the other. AP applying haphazardly makes it virtually impossible to accurately value, because it's going to be a probabilistic value rather than a flat Universal one. Ie AP 5 only works on sv5 so it's value is based on how often it will actually encounter that, which is an abstract probabilistic value. ASM will apply to whatever it hits, making it a simple tangible measure.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2025/01/11 23:43:09
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/12 00:07:08
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Witch Hunter in the Shadows
|
Hellebore wrote:A 5 man devestator squad with 4 plasma cannons could do that for less points though and more reliably with bs4.
Around about the same cost for 5 marines or two walkers IIRC. It didn't help that they were twinlinked up on the front of every wave serpent for pennies as well.
A different era - I remember when taking a whole inquisitor retinue for just one plasma cannon was not unreasonable. Fast forward to the end of 7th and you had things like the war convocation giving you a free plasma cannon with every 10pt servitor.
What was considered 'broken' shifted quite a bit over the editions considering that just having 4 heavy support slots was serious business, the slight edge in trading out units.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/12 00:46:19
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
Annandale, VA
|
Hellebore wrote:AP applying haphazardly makes it virtually impossible to accurately value, because it's going to be a probabilistic value rather than a flat Universal one. Ie AP 5 only works on sv5 so it's value is based on how often it will actually encounter that, which is an abstract probabilistic value. ASM will apply to whatever it hits, making it a simple tangible measure.
I'd say that's as much a feature as it is a bug. ASMs being much easier to quantify, and applying more 'universally', has resulted in diminished importance of weapon-target pairing and more options written off at the listbuilding stage through the dull application of mathhammer. We've clearly seen that it's easy to crunch the numbers and determine that a medium-strength medium- AP weapon is good against pretty much everything (see: Disintegrator spam), whereas the AP system being much harder to numerically deconstruct meant listbuilding was based more on heuristics, and there was more reason to mix high-volume low- AP and low-volume high- AP to address differing breakpoints.
In any case, we have ample evidence that GW can't accurately value units or upgrades to begin with so I don't really buy that the ASM system is more conducive to balance. It all gets hammered out through playtesting and community feedback anyways.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2025/01/12 00:48:58
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/12 01:24:17
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
I wouldn't say that the inability for your players to understand the working of your mechanics is a feature personally.
And that obfuscation acting as a game play improver only works if the base game is balanced to allow it. Otherwise the game is broken and no one can figure out the maths of why (which itself is imo a bigger incentive for gw...).
But it's clear throughout the life of the 3rd Ed system that ap was never balanced properly and required continual changing, and the race to lowest ap combo was seen as the quickest way around the opaqueness. If you have ap2 then the maths doesn't matter.
You may not understand the maths of ap, but in an all or nothing system you understand where the best bang for buck is, at ap2.
And when the majority of the game is sv3+ and 2+ armies/models you need ap2 to exist, which inevitably saw the run end there very quickly.
So in the end, 3+ save armies suffered the exact same problems every other army had always suffered, but only then was ap considered a problem.
A problem which ultimately couldn't be solved because the game was mostly 3+ vs 3+ and the people complaining about losing their saves also wanted to remove their opponent's,
And thus the great space marine ourobouros of "not tough enough vs guns are too good" began.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2025/01/12 01:26:59
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/12 01:39:52
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare
|
Tyran wrote: Insectum7 wrote:I definitely have seen people enjoy their skew armies. And I've definitely enjoyed playing against them as they can offer a fresh or unexpected challenge. I recall fondly a player who showed up at our club with a 140+ model Ork army that was hard as **** to contend with, but trying to deal with it was a blast.
And on the other hand of the game, having to deal with 2+/5++ Paladin death star skew wasn't what I would call a blast.
But still taking your preference for skew into account, that is still limited by the issue saves are mostly faction bound. A Space Marine player cannot skew into light infantry as pretty much all Space Marines are 3+ or 2+ armor save aside of scouts. Orks have a similar issue with only meganobz having a 2+ and I don't recall them having access to 3+ saves.
And having to buy an entirely new army just to play a different type of armour save doesn't seem what I would call a rewarding choice.
Those Paladin squads weren't unfun because of their save, but because of the wound mechanics of 5th ed, iirc. I don't remember anyone finding all Deathwing lists particularly hard to deal with.
But to your last point, hard disagree. Different factions should have their different limitations. That's a core part of army identity/design.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hellebore wrote:A.T. wrote:
Two 3e war walkers could on average take out an entire 3e terminator squad with their first shots on turn 1. Two units of two would wipe an entire ten man assault, devastator, or tactical squad off the board upgrades and all if they weren't in cover.
.
A 5 man devestator squad with 4 plasma cannons could do that for less points though and more reliably with bs4.
Easy defense against the Plasma Cannon is to space out your models so the templates only hit one each. The Plasma Cannons couldn't move and fire like the WW either. Nor could they benefit from Guide or Doom.
Hellebore wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
I genuinely think that the balance is actually more subtle.
Which sounds like a flippant or obnoxious thing to say, but I think it's actually the case.
More than open to that being the case, I just don't really see examples of it.
A -1asm applies a 16% armour reduction to all targets ( which has different relative effects depending on the base save, although that should be factored into the relative cost of the armour.
AP applies a 0% armour reduction - until it applies a 100% armour reduction.
One is easier to cost out and balance than the other. AP applying haphazardly makes it virtually impossible to accurately value, because it's going to be a probabilistic value rather than a flat Universal one. Ie AP 5 only works on sv5 so it's value is based on how often it will actually encounter that, which is an abstract probabilistic value. ASM will apply to whatever it hits, making it a simple tangible measure.
The hard AP system makes differentiation between models and weapons more defined. The balancing comes from the greater army structure, availability and pricing of the various units. Those are definitely levers of balance, but they're much harder to quantify than per the usual "points spent vs points of damage taken" shorthand math which is a common tool for examining balance. Army vs army balance is what the game is(was) after, rather than strict unit vs. unit.
This is an inadequate post to really dig in to it. Travelling with kids atm. Focus ain't good!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Hellebore wrote:I wouldn't say that the inability for your players to understand the working of your mechanics is a feature personally.
Agreed, and it's a fair critique. I thought it worked quite well, but explaining it to new players was always interesting because there are very unintuitive aspects to it. Automatically Appended Next Post: Hellebore wrote:
And thus the great space marine ourobouros of "not tough enough vs guns are too good" began.
That seems to wind up being the case in either save system because of the balance-pressures involved, anyways.
|
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2025/01/12 02:10:59
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/12 02:11:28
Subject: Re:The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
Annandale, VA
|
Hellebore wrote:I wouldn't say that the inability for your players to understand the working of your mechanics is a feature personally.
And that obfuscation acting as a game play improver only works if the base game is balanced to allow it. Otherwise the game is broken and no one can figure out the maths of why (which itself is imo a bigger incentive for gw...).
There's no obfuscation. The mechanic was easy to understand, even if it wasn't immediately intuitive.
It just had depth beyond 'plug it into Excel and see what's mathematically optimal'; tactical considerations that could not be easily reduced to spreadsheet math, and required some thought about how different elements of your army would deal with different threats.
That's a good thing to have in a wargame. It allows for debate, pros and cons, varied playstyles- not just right choices and wrong ones.
Hellebore wrote:You may not understand the maths of ap, but in an all or nothing system you understand where the best bang for buck is, at ap2.
And when the majority of the game is sv3+ and 2+ armies/models you need ap2 to exist, which inevitably saw the run end there very quickly.
So in the end, 3+ save armies suffered the exact same problems every other army had always suffered, but only then was ap considered a problem.
If you played 3rd Ed, decided that AP2 was the way to go, and took lascannons on everything that could carry them, I'd bet money you lost more games than you won.
For starters, it was wasted firepower against infantry hordes or even armies with lots of light vehicles, where that single shot (and only if you stayed stationary) was overkill. Even against more balanced armies, it meant a ton of points tied up in expensive single-shot weapons with limited ideal targets. AP2 was powerful and you paid for it accordingly, making units like quad-lascannon Devastator squads into juicy targets.
It was the proliferation of cheap AP3 in 5th Ed that started to cause problems for the AP system when combined with the natural AP3/Sv3+ breakpoint created by the real-world predominance of power armor factions. Prior to that, the trade-off between volume of fire and high AP made it difficult to spam Marine-busting weapons, so tailoring for a Marine-heavy meta was difficult.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2025/01/12 02:13:41
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/12 03:12:00
Subject: Re:The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard
|
catbarf wrote:
If you played 3rd Ed, decided that AP2 was the way to go, and took lascannons on everything that could carry them, I'd bet money you lost more games than you won.
For starters, it was wasted firepower against infantry hordes or even armies with lots of light vehicles, where that single shot (and only if you stayed stationary) was overkill. Even against more balanced armies, it meant a ton of points tied up in expensive single-shot weapons with limited ideal targets. AP2 was powerful and you paid for it accordingly, making units like quad-lascannon Devastator squads into juicy targets.
It was the proliferation of cheap AP3 in 5th Ed that started to cause problems for the AP system when combined with the natural AP3/Sv3+ breakpoint created by the real-world predominance of power armor factions. Prior to that, the trade-off between volume of fire and high AP made it difficult to spam Marine-busting weapons, so tailoring for a Marine-heavy meta was difficult.
Sort of this - at a certain point it was easier to take on 2+ with a thousand flashlights and spam AP3 at the 3+
|
My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/12 08:59:00
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Posts with Authority
|
catbarf wrote: tauist wrote: catbarf wrote: RustyNumber wrote:So when do we crack into the " D6 is a gak base for a wargame" debate? Absolutely loving these in depth (and polite!) grognard discussions! I'll admit from a fluff standpoint flashlights being able to do anything to a tank is gak, as is flamethrowers being able to harm a SM.
The vast majority of wargames published in the history of wargaming have used D6s. I can name you plenty of modern systems that use D6s and have no need for other dice. D6s are fine.
40K's problem is implementation, and one of the factors directly relevant to this thread is GW making the baseline average profile one that saves on a 3+. In the all-or-nothing system, the prevalence of Marines made AP3 a magic breakpoint. In the modifier system, a single step better halves your incoming damage, a single step worse increases it by 50%.
Linear modifiers on individual dice have outsized impact in this environment that would not be nearly as problematic if the baseline was 4+ or 5+. Or simply folded into a more generic defensive stat, because the modeled distinction between Toughness, Wounds, and Save is now entirely arbitrary and in practice T and Sv are largely redundant to one another.
Are you sure about that?
It is my understanding that in a typical Warhammer game system, when it comes to shooting, the most prescious stat (after the amount of shots a weapon fires) is the to-hit roll number, followed by toughness, followed by save. This being because the dice pools are resolved in the shoot-wound-save order, and whichever comes first affects the amount of dice that get to the next stage the most.
Or is this because to wound roll values are dictated by the S-vs-T table, in which 1 pip +/- is not as significant as in the other two stages, which modulate linearly?
Order doesn't matter. Going from hitting on 5+ to hitting on 3+ doubles your damage. Forcing the target to save on 5+ instead of 3+ also doubles your damage. Same effect.
The reason the bonus to hit is more valuable is because going from hitting on 5+ to 3+ always doubles your damage output, while an extra two points of AP gets you nothing if the target has no armor to begin with.
So, you are saying that 6+/2+/6+ shoot/wound/save would result in as much successfull kills as 4+/4+/4+ IRL? Maybe thats what statistical math would tell you, but its not what seems to happen IRL when the die touch the table.. (note these numbers are probably off but you should get what I'm trying to say here)
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2025/01/12 09:01:55
"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) 2025/01/12 09:12:32
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Killer Klaivex
The dark behind the eyes.
|
tauist wrote:
So, you are saying that 6+/2+/6+ shoot/wound/save would result in as much successfull kills as 4+/4+/4+ IRL? Maybe thats what statistical math would tell you, but its not what seems to happen IRL when the die touch the table.. (note these numbers are probably off but you should get what I'm trying to say here)
You ask about real life experiences, but in real life I can't say I've seen either of those scenarios very often.
|
blood reaper wrote:I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote:Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote:GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
Andilus Greatsword wrote:
"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"
Akiasura wrote:I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.
insaniak wrote:
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/12 09:48:17
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Posts with Authority
|
I am just trying to wrap my head around the probabilities of staggered diceroll mechanics. It goes against common sense that if you have a process of elimination, where each stage drops unqualifying attempts, that it would not matter if the first trials were more difficult, and the later ones easier, than the other way round..
|
"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) 2025/01/12 12:05:49
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
tauist wrote:So, you are saying that 6+/2+/6+ shoot/wound/save would result in as much successfull kills as 4+/4+/4+ IRL? Maybe thats what statistical math would tell you, but its not what seems to happen IRL when the die touch the table.. (note these numbers are probably off but you should get what I'm trying to say here)
First option means that 1/6 * 5/6 * 5/6 shots will generate a wound - or 25/216 shots (11.57%).
Second option is (1/2)^3, or 1/8, which would translate to 12.5%.
Not exactly equivalent, but pretty close.
The bit that always throws me when talking about this is the Save roll, as you have to remember that you don't want that roll to succeed. So if you're shuffling that top equation around, a 6+ save is equivalent to a 2+ to-hit/wound (as 1/6 fail in each case).
The key thing to remember is that these calculations give you an expected value, which is effectively the average value over many rolls. What you see on the table is the individual outcome of one batch of rolls, which is likely to vary from the expected value to some degree.
|
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... |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/12 15:49:23
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Witch Hunter in the Shadows
|
tauist wrote:I am just trying to wrap my head around the probabilities of staggered diceroll mechanics. It goes against common sense that if you have a process of elimination, where each stage drops unqualifying attempts, that it would not matter if the first trials were more difficult, and the later ones easier, than the other way round..
It's worth noting this is only true is all dice rolls lead to the same result.
It is important to factor in cause and effect (i.e. 3e rending was more powerful than 5e rending because it happened a step earlier and eliminated two rather than one subsequent rolls), where one roll can mean more than one thing (i.e. saves and invulnerable saves), and where decisions such as rerolls and wound allocation occur (i.e. choosing who has to make a save vs choosing who suffers a wound).
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/12 15:54:19
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Posts with Authority
|
These are fascinating things. For example, I was very shocked to find out that 4+ has a slightly worse chance of success than 5+ with a re-roll.
I should revisit maths some more..
|
"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) 2025/01/12 17:32:09
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan
Mexico
|
Insectum7 wrote:
But to your last point, hard disagree. Different factions should have their different limitations. That's a core part of army identity/design.
It is an extremely flawed way to implement army identity/design as it always ends in have/have not balance issues that are impossible to resolve.
And that issue is further worsened with such a strong system like AP as it turns the game into a question of if you have good AP and saves or you have not.
The hard AP system makes differentiation between models and weapons more defined. The balancing comes from the greater army structure, availability and pricing of the various units. Those are definitely levers of balance, but they're much harder to quantify than per the usual "points spent vs points of damage taken" shorthand math which is a common tool for examining balance. Army vs army balance is what the game is(was) after, rather than strict unit vs. unit.
Unit vs unit is necessary for internal balance. If you see an unit or wargear that is mostly forgotten and lack of army diversity within a faction, you need to get into unit vs unit to figure why.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2025/01/12 17:32:53
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/12 21:48:29
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare
|
Tyran wrote: Insectum7 wrote:
But to your last point, hard disagree. Different factions should have their different limitations. That's a core part of army identity/design.
It is an extremely flawed way to implement army identity/design as it always ends in have/have not balance issues that are impossible to resolve.
And that issue is further worsened with such a strong system like AP as it turns the game into a question of if you have good AP and saves or you have not.
The hard AP system makes differentiation between models and weapons more defined. The balancing comes from the greater army structure, availability and pricing of the various units. Those are definitely levers of balance, but they're much harder to quantify than per the usual "points spent vs points of damage taken" shorthand math which is a common tool for examining balance. Army vs army balance is what the game is(was) after, rather than strict unit vs. unit.
Unit vs unit is necessary for internal balance. If you see an unit or wargear that is mostly forgotten and lack of army diversity within a faction, you need to get into unit vs unit to figure why.
^Unit v unit is necessary for internal balance, but not external balance. Army v army is the only thing that matters in external balance.
Have/have nots is fine when balancing armies. Effectiveness isn't about having the same tools that every other army has, but about being able to counter what other armies can field in some way, even if it's not direct or obvious.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/12 22:32:09
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard
|
Insectum7 wrote:
Have/have nots is fine when balancing armies. Effectiveness isn't about having the same tools that every other army has, but about being able to counter what other armies can field in some way, even if it's not direct or obvious.
In fact, I'd go so far as to say GW spent a lot of time making sure each army had at least one "hole". Some have-not weakness(es) was as much a part of their identity as their have(s). Marines not having chaff, Guard not having Power Armor, Orks not having high LD or shooting accuracy to go with their volume and on and on. The allure was mixing and matching strengths and weaknesses in your own faction choices
|
My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/12 23:26:27
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Witch Hunter in the Shadows
|
Tyran wrote:And that issue is further worsened with such a strong system like AP as it turns the game into a question of if you have good AP and saves or you have not.
Something that was quite noticeable in earlier editions was how much of an advantage you could get by knowing what your opponent was and tailoring to them compared to making an all-comers list.
But you could also skew yourself into a terrible loss, when the cost of the skew was high enough. 6pt plasma guns in 3e were no risk and all reward, 15pt plasma guns in 5th were not just more points but one less meltagun for transports or flamer against the high dug-in cover saves of chaff, a worse return against the fare more frequent invurnerable saves, etc.
In the 5e marine book plasma guns were a pro and con kind of choice, and so were starcannons at that point. Immediately sabotaged by the guard book but the possibility for balance was there to be grasped.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/13 01:33:15
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan
Mexico
|
I'm not saying it is a system that impossible to balance.
But when you combine it with a meta that is overwhelmingly Marine, with a faction design built around the haves and have nots, and with some rules that synergize very strongly with AP like large blasts; it does some come quite close to being near impossible to balance.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/13 01:51:28
Subject: The AP System. Fundamentally flawed, or just poorly implemented?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
Annandale, VA
|
Seems like a non sequitur to me. Did leafblower Guard in 5th suffer for lack of 3+ saves as they dominated tournaments? Have you never seen a reasonably balanced game where different factions have different capabilities and limitations?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tauist wrote:I am just trying to wrap my head around the probabilities of staggered diceroll mechanics. It goes against common sense that if you have a process of elimination, where each stage drops unqualifying attempts, that it would not matter if the first trials were more difficult, and the later ones easier, than the other way round..
I bake 40 cookies. My mom takes 1/2 of the cookies. I now have 20 cookies. You take 3/4 of what remains. I have 5 cookies.
I bake 40 cookies. My mom takes 3/4 of the cookies. I now have 10 cookies. You take 1/2 of what remains. I have 5 cookies.
It doesn't matter what order you apply the downselections in.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2025/01/13 01:55:27
|
|
 |
 |
|