Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I've never been a fan of the Armor Penetration mechanic. The all or nothing feel has never sat right for me. Actually the save mechanic in general is quite cumbersome.

Here is a simple Armor Modification mechanic for Armor Penetration in addition to some proposed changes for Cover and Invulnerable saves. Granted, there will be some problems, mainly pricing of weapons in regards to squads, etc and availability of some of the AP Values and Rate of Fires. Mainly Xenos base weapons would need to drop to the AP6/- range or Marines and Terminator would take more of a hit.

Cover, modifies Ballistic Skill.

4+/5+ Cover is now a -1 BS
3+ Cover is now -2BS
Stealth is now an additional -1BS
Shrouding is now an additional -1BS

BS can't be modified below 1.

Armor Penetration now modifies Saves without negating them.

AP1 could be save -5
AP2 could be save -4
AP3 could be save -3
AP4 could be save -2
AP5 could be save -1
AP6/- would be save -0

Invulnerable saves are now taken in addition to Armor Saves.

What are your thoughts?

Good idea, although it might be better to do something like this for the sames
AP1 could be save -5 and something to do with vehicles (like the old rule that glances became pens)
AP2 could be save -5
AP3 could be save -4
AP4 could be save -3
AP5 could be save -2
AP6 could be save -1
AP- would be save -0
That way AP6 has a point to exist


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, shrouded is supposed to be better than than stealth so maybe -2BS.

 Zagman wrote:
mainly Xenos base weapons would need to drop to the AP6/- range or Marines and Terminator would take more of a hit.

And not imperial weapons? Why is that?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Good idea, although it might be better to do something like this for the sames
AP1 could be save -5 and something to do with vehicles (like the old rule that glances became pens)
AP2 could be save -5
AP3 could be save -4
AP4 could be save -3
AP5 could be save -2
AP6 could be save -1
AP- would be save -0
That way AP6 has a point to exist


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, shrouded is supposed to be better than than stealth so maybe -2BS.

 Zagman wrote:
mainly Xenos base weapons would need to drop to the AP6/- range or Marines and Terminator would take more of a hit.

And not imperial weapons? Why is that?

Thank you for the comment. The problem with your suggestion is it really really hurts armor saves more than needed. I considered a rough table that was actually less severe than my OP table. Mine was more a conversion, yes AP6 would be the same as AP-, which it already effectively is.

The Reason I say Xenos base wepaons, ie the Pulse Rifle, Guass Weapons, Shurken Weapons, etc already have some significant advantatges, and 3+ AS models suffer already. Without a change most marines would only get a 4+ vs the base weapon of other armies. By keeping the Bolt Weapons the same marines get a bit of a needed boost, so do Terminators etc, while the special an non standard weapons would be effective.

Thank you for the feedback.

 Zagman wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Good idea, although it might be better to do something like this for the sames
AP1 could be save -5 and something to do with vehicles (like the old rule that glances became pens)
AP2 could be save -5
AP3 could be save -4
AP4 could be save -3
AP5 could be save -2
AP6 could be save -1
AP- would be save -0
That way AP6 has a point to exist


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, shrouded is supposed to be better than than stealth so maybe -2BS.

 Zagman wrote:
mainly Xenos base weapons would need to drop to the AP6/- range or Marines and Terminator would take more of a hit.

And not imperial weapons? Why is that?

Thank you for the comment. The problem with your suggestion is it really really hurts armor saves more than needed. I considered a rough table that was actually less severe than my OP table. Mine was more a conversion, yes AP6 would be the same as AP-, which it already effectively is.

The Reason I say Xenos base wepaons, ie the Pulse Rifle, Guass Weapons, Shurken Weapons, etc already have some significant advantatges, and 3+ AS models suffer already. Without a change most marines would only get a 4+ vs the base weapon of other armies. By keeping the Bolt Weapons the same marines get a bit of a needed boost, so do Terminators etc, while the special an non standard weapons would be effective.

Thank you for the feedback.

Actually you could just change AP- to giving +1 Armour on your list.
The bolter thing makes sense, I mean, they are miniture rocket propelled gernades.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I just had an idea.
AP6 gives -0, accept to 6+ which it gives -1.

AP- Improving armor is an interesting idea and one I could get behind. Doubles Marines durability to Lasguns.... Either way, that could work but it requires reworking some base weapons and point costs.

If im reading this correctly, a bolter will make a terminator take an armor save on 4+?

Not sure if want.

Personally i like the idea of if AP equal to armor its a -1 to that save with a additional -1 for each ap less. something like that.

That way ap 1-2 will still greatly hurt power armor and terminator armor without making them less powerful against small arms.

Power armor hit by a rail rifle will need to make a 6+ armor save while a terminator will take a 4+ armor save.

 Desubot wrote:
If im reading this correctly, a bolter will make a terminator take an armor save on 4+?

Not sure if want.

Personally i like the idea of if AP equal to armor its a -1 to that save with a additional -1 for each ap less. something like that.

That way ap 1-2 will still greatly hurt power armor and terminator armor without making them less powerful against small arms.

Power armor hit by a rail rifle will need to make a 6+ armor save while a terminator will take a 4+ armor save.

Not quite, a Bolter would make a Terminator take a 3+ Armor Save followed by either their 5++ or 3++.

Vs a Bolter AP5

A Scout has a 5+ (Reduced Chance of Saving)
A Tactical Marine has a 4+ (Reduced chance of Saving)
A Tactical Terminator has a 3+ then 5++ (Reduced chance of Saving)
A Storm Shield Terminator has a 3+ then 3++ (Improved chance of Saving)

Vs AP6/- Shuriken Weapon with Bladestorm

A Scout has a 4+ (No change in chance of Saving)
A Tactical Marine has a 3+ (No change in chance of Saving)
A Tactical Terminator has a 2+ then a 5++ (Improved chance of Saving)
A Storm Shield Terminator has a 2+ then a 3++ (Improved chance of Saving)

with a chance for Bladestorm(AP2)

A Scout has no save (No change in chance of Saving)
A Tactical Marine has no save (No change in chance of Saving)
A Tactical Terminator has a 6+ then a 5++ (Improved chance of Saving)
A Storm Shield Terminator has a 6+ then a 3++ (Improved chance of Saving)

Vs Baleflamer(AP3)

A Scout has no save (No change in chance of Saving)
A Tactical Marine has a 6+ save (Improved chance of Saving)
A Tactical Terminator has a 5+ then a 5++ (Reduced Chance of Saving)
A Storm Shield Terminator has a 5+ then a 3++ (Reduced Chance of Saving)

Basically, if your AP equals their AS they still get a 6+ AS while the same AP is now more effective against better Armor Saves in most instances. Heavily armed squads with Invuln Saves get a boost. Cover becomes more critical for Armor types almost equally.

Against AP6/- weapons only models with an Invulnerable Save become more resilient, but Cover allows any model to reduce the amount of damage they take from most sources by reducing the number of hits they take.

AP5/4 Small arms will need to be limited and cost adjusted outside of the BoltGun/Pistol/Stormbolter. Ie the Pulse Rifle, Kroot Rifle, Burst Cannon, Shuriken weapons need to be AP6, Guass should be AP5. Etc. Also, Tau S7/AP4 spam would be a problem as well and may been to be adjusted to AP5.

Mk yeah i actually miss read for sure.. for some reason i though ap5 was - 2 not 1

But still for a bunch of bolters to force 3+ on terminators is a bit much. 3+ being fairly weak to save as it is. (at least when i try to save 3+ anyway ) though being able to take the invul after like a ward save is nice.

 Desubot wrote:
Mk yeah i actually miss read for sure.. for some reason i though ap5 was - 2 not 1

But still for a bunch of bolters to force 3+ on terminators is a bit much. 3+ being fairly weak to save as it is. (at least when i try to save 3+ anyway ) though being able to take the invul after like a ward save is nice.

Yep, another goal with limiting the Xenos access to AP5 base weapons while letting the Bolter keep it was to boost the Tacticals and Terminator's resilience.

Getting a 3+ AS then a 5++ Invuln is ~saving 1/5 vs 1/6. Not a huge difference. Marines get a bit better at killing other marines. Relatively speaking Terminators get more durable to justify their cost. While the offense of both is increased verses the other armies.

Don't forget how much of an impact cover would make. Yes, a bolter gets better at killing marines and tactical terminators, but even a hint of cover means fewer shots are hitting their mark. Bolter Slugfests get a bit more interesting instead of the I fail to hurt you, you fail to hurt me we currently have with any unit having a tactically superior position(cover) being the deciding factor.

Limiting the Low end of BS to 1 means that you can't make anything effectively invulnerable. IE taking cover against all of those Ork shots isn't as effective as taking cover against the Marine shots, because the Orks were relying on volume of inaccurate fire anyway.


My other idea for cover was to take another save against hits, before rolls to wound were made instead of modifying BS. But, this is adding potentially two layers of dice rolling whereas BS modification is faster. IE base cover is a 6+, Ruins are a 5+, Stealth is +1 and Shrouding is +2, not cumulative unless in the open for a 4+.

I think cover penalizing Bs is the right way to go, as adding cover + armor + invul is just gonna take forever.

But as it is now. im trying to run the numbers in my head. it seems like basically nothing will die.

not only do you have the i failed to hurt you, you failed to hurt me slug fest. your adding you/i failed to hit. as well (as if the guys where in ruins you would miss 2/3 of the time now instead) it would lower the incentive to move. or greatly increase the power of fast moving assault units like bikes and jump (though really assault units needed the help anyway) I think that kinda cover system would be better suited for a D10 type game not sure how well it works with current 40k. me 2 cents.


Edit:Im going to have to redact that a bit
Turns out current game with bolters at full shots cause 2.2 unsaved
your system in the open causes 3.3
+ forest = 2.5
+ ruin = 1.6

 Desubot wrote:
I think cover penalizing Bs is the right way to go, as adding cover + armor + invul is just gonna take forever.

But as it is now. im trying to run the numbers in my head. it seems like basically nothing will die.

not only do you have the i failed to hurt you, you failed to hurt me slug fest. your adding you/i failed to hit. as well (as if the guys where in ruins you would miss 2/3 of the time now instead) it would lower the incentive to move. or greatly increase the power of fast moving assault units like bikes and jump (though really assault units needed the help anyway) I think that kinda cover system would be better suited for a D10 type game not sure how well it works with current 40k. me 2 cents.


Edit:Im going to have to redact that a bit
Turns out current game with bolters at full shots cause 2.2 unsaved
your system in the open causes 3.3
+ forest = 2.5
+ ruin = 1.6

I agree, modifying BS is better.

My initial math leads to a more granular problem. But, my initial value judgement of needing to modify the AP of most xenos weapons may be unfounded.

Current 10 Firewarriors(AP6) vs 10 Marines(Current/Modified)

At Range

1.1/1.1 vs 2.2/2.9

At Range Forest Cover

1.1/.7 vs 2.2/2.2

At Ranged Ruins Cover

1.1/.4 vs 2.2/1.5

Current 10 Firewarriors(AP5) vs 10 Marines(Current/Modified)

At Range

1.1/1.7 vs 2.2/2.9

At Range Forest Cover

1.1/.1 vs 2.2/2.2

At Ranged Ruins Cover

1.1/.6 vs 2.2/1.5

Hmm.... It is definitely showing that BS4 is huge and BS3 is a major limiter when firing against cover. If the Firewarriors were AP5 they would mow marines down in droves without cover, but struggle against Cover. If AP6, Firewarriors would really begin to struggle. Cover modifications are appearing to be absolutely massive, BS becomes more important with Cover.

Xenos may need to keep their AP5. But, I don't know if we'd really want marines hugging cover against Fire Warriors... But, Marines would begin winning that firefight.

The return fire is interesting too. unsaved wounds from full strength 10man bolter marines vs fire warriors (or ig in carapace)
4.444444444 Current
5.925925926 Alt no cover
4.444444444 Alt forest
2.962962963 Alt ruin

You will really mow down a 6man squad out in the open quite easily (though getting there is an issue)

There may be major issues with wargear like markerlights and auspex(to a lesser extent) and flamer weapons might get a little nuts too.

I think you will need to fix the going to ground/pinned system as well. as well additional rules for terrain density. (oh god i can imagine the fun time stealth suits will have )

 Desubot wrote:
The return fire is interesting too. unsaved wounds from full strength 10man bolter marines vs fire warriors (or ig in carapace)
4.444444444 Current
5.925925926 Alt no cover
4.444444444 Alt forest
2.962962963 Alt ruin

You will really mow down a 6man squad out in the open quite easily (though getting there is an issue)

There may be major issues with wargear like markerlights and auspex(to a lesser extent) and flamer weapons might get a little nuts too.

Yeah, I don't really see the problem keeping Xenos AP5. I mean, with a touch of Cover Marines begin winning that firefight, though they'll get mowed down in the open pretty bad, they'll be mowing alot of their enemy down too. Markerlights could be a problem, true, but they'll just do what they already do.

BS4 Troops like trading fire with cover, BS3 want open ground. I don't think the difference is too drastic, Both die faster in the open, Marines a bit more so. But, bunkering down in cover the Marines win out with AP5. AP6 its becomes almost no contest with cover and could lead marines to be OP with cover.

Interesting. So many ramifications.

What about a 5+As unit with T3

10 marines single shot
Current 4.4
Current Forest 2.9
Current Ruins 2.2
Alt No Cover 3.7
Alt Forest 2.8
Alt Ruins 1.9

10 Firewarriors(AP5) Single Shot
Current 4.2
Current Forest 2.8
Current Ruins 2.1
Alt No Cover 3.5
Alt Forest 2.3
Alt Ruins 1.2

Guardsmen get Tougher... Its definitely more granular.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zagman wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
The return fire is interesting too. unsaved wounds from full strength 10man bolter marines vs fire warriors (or ig in carapace)
4.444444444 Current
5.925925926 Alt no cover
4.444444444 Alt forest
2.962962963 Alt ruin

You will really mow down a 6man squad out in the open quite easily (though getting there is an issue)

There may be major issues with wargear like markerlights and auspex(to a lesser extent) and flamer weapons might get a little nuts too.

Yeah, I don't really see the problem keeping Xenos AP5. I mean, with a touch of Cover Marines begin winning that firefight, though they'll get mowed down in the open pretty bad, they'll be mowing alot of their enemy down too. Markerlights could be a problem, true, but they'll just do what they already do.

BS4 Troops like trading fire with cover, BS3 want open ground. I don't think the difference is too drastic, Both die faster in the open, Marines a bit more so. But, bunkering down in cover the Marines win out with AP5. AP6 its becomes almost no contest with cover and could lead marines to be OP with cover.

Interesting. So many ramifications.

What about a 5+As unit with T3

10 marines single shot
Current 4.4
Current Forest 2.9
Current Ruins 2.2
Alt No Cover 3.7
Alt Forest 2.8
Alt Ruins 1.9

10 Firewarriors(AP5) Single Shot
Current 4.2
Current Forest 2.8
Current Ruins 2.1
Alt No Cover 3.5
Alt Forest 2.3
Alt Ruins 1.2

Guardsmen get Tougher... Its definitely more granular.

Minimum BS1, even BS1 shots vs T3 3+AS Stealth suits isn't great. Where they would excel would be in the open or against higher BS units.

Going to Ground, -1 BS penalty just like Stealth etc. The Minimum BS rule would limit the benefit against certain armies and limit the penalty for shooting at enemies with cover. Good points.

I've seen this argument a 100 times. It always boils down to "how do we factor in range & cover too?". Each person starts screaming about how that would effect their army or MEQs. There's spreadsheets & personal testimonials (which are worthless) being shot back and forth. Either way GW isn't listening.

My two cents, keep the current AP/AV system. I played 40k when it was Rogue Trader& then 2nd Ed. Armor Mod was awful. Nobody got a save. And don't forget to add even more WHFB to 40k, because Str modifys armor in cc. That's rights! Good old 2nd Ed. After that we can fight in ranks & go back to guess range artillery.

I agree simply changing cover to a -1 to hit , and hard cover to -2 to hit is MUCH better than the separate cover save 40k currently uses.

However, WHY go back to using a clunky system developed in the 1970 for weapon and armour interaction?

A revised AP system would achive the same thing in a MUCH simpler way.

The NEW AP value simply ignores save rolls of that value or higher.

EG AP 6 ignores save rolls that roll a natural 6.

So Ork boys loose the ONLY dice result that can get to save .6 are ignored.

A Space Marine hit by an AP 6 weapon now save on a 3+,4+5+. ONLY .Any 6s rolled are removed and ignored..

This would mean slight revision and alteration to the AP and point values we currently use though.

Simply removing and save roll dice of the same number or higher than the weapon AP value, is less clunky than minus number modifiers that actualy increase the number required for the save.

Lanrak wrote:
I agree simply changing cover to a -1 to hit , and hard cover to -2 to hit is MUCH better than the separate cover save 40k currently uses.

However, WHY go back to using a clunky system developed in the 1970 for weapon and armour interaction?

A revised AP system would achive the same thing in a MUCH simpler way.

The NEW AP value simply ignores save rolls of that value or higher.

EG AP 6 ignores save rolls that roll a natural 6.

So Ork boys loose the ONLY dice result that can get to save .6 are ignored.

A Space Marine hit by an AP 6 weapon now save on a 3+,4+5+. ONLY .Any 6s rolled are removed and ignored..

This would mean slight revision and alteration to the AP and point values we currently use though.

Simply removing and save roll dice of the same number or higher than the weapon AP value, is less clunky than minus number modifiers that actualy increase the number required for the save.

I believe that has almost the exact same math involved. I find it almost more difficult than simply reducing the Armor Save, at least how I see it.


I thin armor modification for a d6 is almost too much, I almost wish 40k was using a D8, or even a D10. It would add so much granularity to the system IMO.

I'm not a fan TBH.
I think the issue lies with the retarrded amount ap2/3 templates+ presience that can be thrown around. I don't see how your suggested system would do anything but buff those, as templates don't give a gak about BS if they don't scatter. This would lead to Wraithguards being even more disgusting, because according to your table, they could can just nuke gak out, ignoring both cover and saves..

I'll pass.

Rolling both saves makes Storm Shields too damned good. It's already one of the most cost efficient purchases outside of Space Wolves, and with your changes you'd really need to increase their point cost to the same level as, or higher than, what you see in Space Wolf codex (i.e. +25pts per model or more)

I wouldn't say that much though Points per survivability should be calculated across the board now with the invul changes.

TH SS terminators are considers weak as heck by a lot of people so i wouldn't mind seeing these changes.

 Desubot wrote:
I wouldn't say that much though Points per survivability should be calculated across the board now with the invul changes.

TH SS terminators are considers weak as heck by a lot of people so i wouldn't mind seeing these changes.

Endurance on TH SS Terminators.

2+ save followed by a 3++ and a FNP...

They are only considered weak because of the torrents of fire and/or high amount of ap2 shots.
Giving them 2+ and a re-rollable 3++ and even FNP with endurance would make them near immune to 30 Guardsmen within RF + orders and presience.. That's just stupid TBH..

Zewrath wrote:
I'm not a fan TBH.
I think the issue lies with the retarrded amount ap2/3 templates+ presience that can be thrown around. I don't see how your suggested system would do anything but buff those, as templates don't give a gak about BS if they don't scatter. This would lead to Wraithguards being even more disgusting, because according to your table, they could can just nuke gak out, ignoring both cover and saves..

I'll pass.

Good point about the Blast and Large Blast interacting with Cover. They would be less accurate with Scatter, but on Hits would be devasting. Definitely too many AP2/3 Templates running around. Though, in the open models with armor saves would fare slightly better, they'd be too powerful and cover would offer little assistance. I think the solution would be to modify the AP value of large blasts by +1, would help...

Wraithguards? With DScythes, get decidedly weaker under my version vs 2+ AS enemies and function exactly the same vs everyone else. They currently ignore Cover and Saves...

Good points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mahtamori wrote:
Rolling both saves makes Storm Shields too damned good. It's already one of the most cost efficient purchases outside of Space Wolves, and with your changes you'd really need to increase their point cost to the same level as, or higher than, what you see in Space Wolf codex (i.e. +25pts per model or more)

VS AP1, they would be exactly the same as current, vs AP2, they would be marginally better, VS AP3 marginally worse, vs AP4 marinally better, vs AP5 Better, vs AP6 Much better.


THSS Terminator standard vs Bolter Wound

Normal 1/6 chance of failing a save, 17%
Modified 1/9, 11%

I'm still a fan of d10 conversion with cover and invulnerability boosting one all-round save. Cover modifying BS is an interesting thought, but likely a lateral change. Have you tested it yet? I mean if you had to roll to hit my stealth suits in cover with Shield Generators using a squad of 10 mahreens, lets say rapid firing, You get 20 shots at what, BS 1 or 2 depending on the final rule of shroud? Say BS 2 for now you get six hits and roll vs. T 3 at Str 4(?) so you get say 4 wounds. I roll 4 5+ armors, take 1 wound out, then three 4++, lose say 1.08 guys at the end? Currently before the change in the same scenario, I lose...only...1.08 guys......WEIRD!! o_O. Except I had less figuring to do first. Like I said, lateral. Unless I did my math wrong somewhere.