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.

herpguy wrote:
I can't help but always wonder why they seem to make 4+ armor basically pointless in 40K. I mean, I guess I can understand due to their extreme love of SMs, but it seems rather ridiculous. Most decent strength weapons have an AP4, which seems like it was given just so it won't be AP3. I mean, why not just make those things AP5 or less? It seems like AP4 is slapped on so many things without a second thought.
AP4 isn't a big deal for power armor, but it makes things like 'eavy armor on orks pretty pointless, among other things.
I really wish they would even out the armor power levels and make 4+ armor options viable in the game.

I made this same point some months ago.

4+ saves have always been notably overpriced. There's a reason almost nobody takes the option as an upgrade when it's available from a competitive standpoint. There's relatively few consistently capable 4+sv armor units, most pay a painful premium for that save and just aren't capable of using it well.

It's better than a 5+ against small arms, but still fails quite a bit and is usually on easily wounded T3 models, there's too many heavy weapons with AP4 for them to survive in the open, and AP4 seems to be the default AP GW uses when they want to make something powerful, but not mess with the holy "3+" paradigm, even if it'll rip apart and AV14 tank. Tyrannofexes, Manticores, Hive Guard, Forgefiends, Heavy Venom Cannons, etc being prime examples. A 4+sv also strikes that perfect awful balance between providing little better save over cover, but still having to stay in cover because of all the AP 4 weapons.

Experiment 626 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
If that's similar to how WFB handles armor I honestly think I prefer that system. Sure I need to do a little basic math, but I roll less dice.

Except that back in the days of 2nd ed and the save modifier system, Space Marines where a massive joke and died almost as easily as Guardsmen on a good day...

Remember that back then, S4 was already a -1 modifier, so Marines most of the time had at best a 4+ save, but typically paid double or more the pts of everyone else's similar infantry. But then take really, really deadly stuff like Plasma, (which granted was even deadlier to use back then - yay plasma grenades!), which had additional modifiers on top of the basic Strength modifier!
Marines were actually bottom feeders back then, simply because outside of Terminators (which were heinously expensive!) they were horrendously overcosted and got little to no added benefit for that 3+ save that seriously inflated their points cost.

You seem to ignore the fact that saves were done on two dice back then. 4+ on two dice is still great.

As orks... I want 4+

Okay, how many people actually take a heavy bolter that isn't thrust upon them? how many people go for autocannons to take out Sv4+? How many times do you say "Darn, I wish I had more AP4 in this list" or "Darn, that list is a killer because of all that AP4." Never, that's when. Never, ever.

All the "good" AP4 is S7 or 8. For the most part, these weapons would be the same with AP3, 5 or 6, or even -. They're almost never designed for anti-infantry purposes, and the ones that are are so solely focussed on it that they would never see the light of day if they were forced up to AP5 or 6.

Seriously. Lots of things have AP4. But they have AP4 because it makes them versatile against some armies, not because they're designed or geared towards taking out infantry.

4+ is not useless, it's excellent. It gives you a 50% effectiveness drop from weapons with AP5 or 6 - i.e; the majority of all standard issues. Let's have a look:

Tau, S5AP5
Eldar, S4AP5 with pseudorending
All facets of the imperium, save guard S4AP5
Orks: S4AP5
Dark Eldar: Poisoned 4+ with AP5
'Crons: S4AP5
Nids: S4AP5.

Boltguns don't have AP4, do they? yet every goddamn marine army has boltguns, or bolt pistols. So you feel Sv4+ is underused or underreperesented just because it's worse than a 3+ save? I disagree. Getting your saves against the most common weapons in the game is huge. Don't pay for it, but Don't underestimate it, even for a minute.

 HisDivineShadow wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
If that's similar to how WFB handles armor I honestly think I prefer that system. Sure I need to do a little basic math, but I roll less dice.

Except that back in the days of 2nd ed and the save modifier system, Space Marines where a massive joke and died almost as easily as Guardsmen on a good day...

Remember that back then, S4 was already a -1 modifier, so Marines most of the time had at best a 4+ save, but typically paid double or more the pts of everyone else's similar infantry. But then take really, really deadly stuff like Plasma, (which granted was even deadlier to use back then - yay plasma grenades!), which had additional modifiers on top of the basic Strength modifier!
Marines were actually bottom feeders back then, simply because outside of Terminators (which were heinously expensive!) they were horrendously overcosted and got little to no added benefit for that 3+ save that seriously inflated their points cost.

You seem to ignore the fact that saves were done on two dice back then. 4+ on two dice is still great.

No space marines had one D6 save. Terminators had 2D6.

Edit: Me and my friend are discussing working in -1 to save modifer for AP4 weapons in our games will let you know how it goes.

Oh man, if you 4+ savers play a pre heresy army with one of those ten man dev squads with all autocannons, you'll be hella upset. But in defense of those armies, they're geared to only fight space marines

Experiment 626 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
If that's similar to how WFB handles armor I honestly think I prefer that system. Sure I need to do a little basic math, but I roll less dice.

Except that back in the days of 2nd ed and the save modifier system, Space Marines where a massive joke and died almost as easily as Guardsmen on a good day...

Most of what you mentioned is basically just a problem not with the modifier system, but with the modifiers weapons have.

Make it so things like lasguns don't have any save modifier, maybe bolt guns are -1 or maybe even 0, and heavy bolters are -2 or -1. Make it so strength alone doesn't give you a save modifier like in WFB but rather each weapon has a save modifier (so some weapons could be S6 with no modifier, other things might be S2 but with a -3 modifier to represent they are specifically designed to damage armour).

I despise the AP system and think it's one of the worst things in 40k. The value of armour comes more from what stats you give weapons, not the system (AP vs save modifier), but the AP system is unbalancing.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
Okay, how many people actually take a heavy bolter that isn't thrust upon them? how many people go for autocannons to take out Sv4+? How many times do you say "Darn, I wish I had more AP4 in this list" or "Darn, that list is a killer because of all that AP4." Never, that's when. Never, ever.

All the "good" AP4 is S7 or 8. For the most part, these weapons would be the same with AP3, 5 or 6, or even -. They're almost never designed for anti-infantry purposes, and the ones that are are so solely focussed on it that they would never see the light of day if they were forced up to AP5 or 6.

Seriously. Lots of things have AP4. But they have AP4 because it makes them versatile against some armies, not because they're designed or geared towards taking out infantry.

4+ is not useless, it's excellent. It gives you a 50% effectiveness drop from weapons with AP5 or 6 - i.e; the majority of all standard issues. Let's have a look:

Tau, S5AP5
Eldar, S4AP5 with pseudorending
All facets of the imperium, save guard S4AP5
Orks: S4AP5
Dark Eldar: Poisoned 4+ with AP5
'Crons: S4AP5
Nids: S4AP5.

Boltguns don't have AP4, do they? yet every goddamn marine army has boltguns, or bolt pistols. So you feel Sv4+ is underused or underreperesented just because it's worse than a 3+ save? I disagree. Getting your saves against the most common weapons in the game is huge. Don't pay for it, but Don't underestimate it, even for a minute.

Indeed. Sv4+ is the reason I am considering replacing my Guardians with Dire Avengers for my infantry force, not +6" range.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
Okay, how many people actually take a heavy bolter that isn't thrust upon them? how many people go for autocannons to take out Sv4+? How many times do you say "Darn, I wish I had more AP4 in this list" or "Darn, that list is a killer because of all that AP4." Never, that's when. Never, ever.

All the "good" AP4 is S7 or 8. For the most part, these weapons would be the same with AP3, 5 or 6, or even -. They're almost never designed for anti-infantry purposes, and the ones that are are so solely focussed on it that they would never see the light of day if they were forced up to AP5 or 6.

Seriously. Lots of things have AP4. But they have AP4 because it makes them versatile against some armies, not because they're designed or geared towards taking out infantry.

4+ is not useless, it's excellent. It gives you a 50% effectiveness drop from weapons with AP5 or 6 - i.e; the majority of all standard issues. Let's have a look:

Tau, S5AP5
Eldar, S4AP5 with pseudorending
All facets of the imperium, save guard S4AP5
Orks: S4AP5
Dark Eldar: Poisoned 4+ with AP5
'Crons: S4AP5
Nids: S4AP5.

Boltguns don't have AP4, do they? yet every goddamn marine army has boltguns, or bolt pistols. So you feel Sv4+ is underused or underreperesented just because it's worse than a 3+ save? I disagree. Getting your saves against the most common weapons in the game is huge. Don't pay for it, but Don't underestimate it, even for a minute.

The orks shoota/slugga is Ap -

Those people talking about the RT days or 2nd ed either never played it, or are so old now they can't remember what it was like.

Could you imagine what Eldar fire power would be like if it subtracted 1 apv for every point of str over 3? Apparently you can't. Because if you did you'd know that the volume of str 6-7 fire would leave you with a 6+ or no save at all. Just think about the Tau & their standard str5 wall of fire. MEQ saves would never be better than 5+. Mights as well play IG.

A 4+ save also functions well in CC. That's where those ork nobs wanna be. A word to the wise, that 4+ also works aces in CC for tau & crons. That's what's saving there butts in CC, not a 4 toughness.

Do some Krumpin' and that 4+ armor save feels a lot better in CC.

 Red Marine wrote:
Those people talking about the RT days or 2nd ed either never played it, or are so old now they can't remember what it was like.

Could you imagine what Eldar fire power would be like if it subtracted 1 apv for every point of str over 3? Apparently you can't. Because if you did you'd know that the volume of str 6-7 fire would leave you with a 6+ or no save at all. Just think about the Tau & their standard str5 wall of fire. MEQ saves would never be better than 5+. Mights as well play IG.

A 4+ save also functions well in CC. That's where those ork nobs wanna be. A word to the wise, that 4+ also works aces in CC for tau & crons. That's what's saving there butts in CC, not a 4 toughness.

I think what people want is a system LIKE that in some measure.

Not exactly like it however, a modifier system.

herpguy wrote:
I do agree with the point that armor in general seems to be pointless nowadays. The old mechanic of weapons reducing your save by a set amount makes much more sense.
It goes in the same boat of how outright ignoring cover is stupid; there should be a modifier.

However, I don't ever rely on 3+ saves anymore but at least a lot of the time I get to at least attempt the save. With 4+ it seems to be a very rare day that a chance for a save happens.

Most weapons which would ignore your present armor save would also have rendered your save back in 2nd ed above 6+ anyways.

The design team must think it's pretty important considering how over-costed chainaxes are.

4+ armor really shines in close combat but for shooting it really depends on your local meta. Most people don't take HBs.

The thing for armor saves for me is that I find them logically bizarre. First we roll to hit, then we roll to wound. Then once wounded a model makes an armor save... But it's already wounded? Wouldn't it be more logical to factor armor into toughness somehow, seeing as armor can't really help you after your wounded.

I'd actually like a system where armor enhances toughness and AP values become something more along the lines of negating the toughness enhancement. Less rolling for a little more basic math.

As a sisters player who frequently play against Necrons, my sisters need that armor save because our toughness aint working very well. (Against other infantry.)

The reason for the order is so each player makes his rolls without having to bounce back and forth. The reason for the three roll system is to provide levels of randomness and rules complexity.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
4+ armor really shines in close combat but for shooting it really depends on your local meta. Most people don't take HBs.

Anecdotal evidence like pretty much everything I post, but heavy bolters annoy me immensely as a Tau player. They have the perfect stats to kill my troops choices without wasting any points on excess stat buffs they don't need S6 AP4 with 3 shots, I can't think of a better way to kill fire warriors.

Seriously though, I love my 4+ saves. It really feels like the best spot to be in as far as getting a save vs the largest number of weapons vs paying too much for your save that you might not use.

 dementedwombat wrote:
I can't think of a better way to kill fire warriors.

Two words: Heavy Flamer!

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:

 dementedwombat wrote:
I can't think of a better way to kill fire warriors.

Two words: Heavy Flamer!

If you get close enough to shoot a heavy flamer then I am doing my job seriously wrong! Although blood angels dreadnoughts in drop pods with 2 heavy flamers are doing their best to change this line of thinking. The thing I hate most is that I can't even get a cover save so I can't pull cheesy "go to ground + defensive grenades for a 5+ cover save then stand up for free the next turn with my warlord trait" nonsense.

If you can't tell I'm a pretty laid back Tau player. One riptide because I like the model and pretty much one-2 of every other unit choice in the codex for my army.

A pretty simple (and fair) formula for save modifiers, similar to 2nd edition, is you take the AP of the weapon then subtract one from it. 6 minus this value gives you the saving throw modifier.

So AP5 weapons end up being -1, AP4 -2, AP3 -3, etc.

In 2nd ed., most weapons (AP5 I guess) were -1 save mod. This type of rules change would allow you to save against a weapon of equal AP on the roll of a 6 (so power armor would get a save against AP3 weapons) but less powerful weapons would actually be more damaging. For example, Marines would get 4+ saves against Bolters.



This is obviously only one way of many that you could choose to handle it, but it seems reasonable. My only complaint is that it actually ends up making light armor better and power armor worse. If you were to forego the "subtract one" from that equation, you would be less in line with 2nd ed. but perhaps more in line with what most posters are hoping for.

 phatonic wrote:

The orks shoota/slugga is Ap -

AP6, actually.

Red Marine wrote:Could you imagine what Eldar fire power would be like if it subtracted 1 apv for every point of str over 3? Apparently you can't. Because if you did you'd know that the volume of str 6-7 fire would leave you with a 6+ or no save at all. Just think about the Tau & their standard str5 wall of fire. MEQ saves would never be better than 5+. Mights as well play IG.

You assume people are wanting THE 2nd edition system exactly. I want the 2nd edition system but with rebalanced modifiers. So NOT -1 save for every str over 3, rather each and every weapon has it's own save modifier value, and most basic weapons would be 0 save modifier (lasguns and such), more powerful basic weapons might be -1. Heavy Bolters would probably be either -1 or -2. Autocannons and Assault Cannons would be -2 or -3.

I'll be more than happy to see the AP system die. If it means my marines are saving on 4+ more frequently, so be it.

At the moment 5+ and 6+ is pretty much completely worthless. It seems much more logical to have slightly reduced effectiveness of power armour and make 5+ and 6+ actually worth something.

Scipio Africanus wrote:Okay, how many people actually take a heavy bolter that isn't thrust upon them? how many people go for autocannons to take out Sv4+? How many times do you say "Darn, I wish I had more AP4 in this list" or "Darn, that list is a killer because of all that AP4." Never, that's when. Never, ever.

I think it depends on where and who you play against. My armies actually have a lot of AP4 in them. My IG army and my SW army have a lot of heavy bolters, autocannons and assault cannons in a TAC list... I like them. They're basically great against everything but marines and average against marines.

AP system is better than save modifiers, also more d6 rolling of sixes is better than less d6 rolling when it comes to shooting/ CC.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
AP system is better than save modifiers

But why? It's a less balanced system.

also more d6 rolling of sixes is better than less d6 rolling when it comes to shooting/ CC.

...not quite sure what you're referring to here.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
AP system is better than save modifiers

But why? It's a less balanced system.

If nothing else, the AP system makes more sense from a realism perspective. Most weapons do have a set band of armor/thickness they are able to penetrate, and that is that. The fact that your gun can shoot through a flak jacket does not in any way shape or form make it better able to shoot through 6 inches of steel. If you want to shoot through 6 inches of steel, you need a different gun. End of story. There's no way an AP5 weapon would realistically have an increased chance of shooting through terminator armor.

I'm not sure in what sense it is unbalanced either... you know exactly what you are paying for and you get what you are paying for, with both weapons and armor. In a modifier system, there's a lot more flex to what you are paying for, and better armor saves and better AP weapons are both less useful.

 Hollowman wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
AP system is better than save modifiers

But why? It's a less balanced system.

If nothing else, the AP system makes more sense from a realism perspective. Most weapons do have a set band of armor/thickness they are able to penetrate, and that is that. The fact that your gun can shoot through a flak jacket does not in any way shape or form make it better able to shoot through 6 inches of steel. If you want to shoot through 6 inches of steel, you need a different gun. End of story. There's no way an AP5 weapon would realistically have an increased chance of shooting through terminator armor.

I'm not sure in what sense it is unbalanced either... you know exactly what you are paying for and you get what you are paying for, with both weapons and armor. In a modifier system, there's a lot more flex to what you are paying for, and better armor saves and better AP weapons are both less useful.

I used to think this about realism, too, but then you've got to remember that the system is an abstraction. For example, there's no way an AP5 bolter could pierce Terminator as it stands. But the fact that it is AP5 should increase it's chances, that is to say:

Premises:
1) Terminator is not of uniform thickness everywhere, and has some thin parts, some thicker parts.
2) Different guns have different penetration capabilities; some are more capable of penetrating certain armor thicknesses than others.
3) Boltguns penetrate thicker armor than lasguns.
4) Neither a boltgun nor lasgun should be able to penetrate the thickest part of Terminator armor.

^These I think we all can agree upon. Now argument:

If a boltgun were to strike a thinner portion of the Terminator armor, it would be more likely to penetrate than the lasgun.

Therefore, I can conclude that, in general, bolt weapons would be better at penetrating Terminator armor than a lasgun (although neither weapon is great at the job, the boltgun is clearly better).

However, under the current AP system, a boltgun is no more likely to penetrate Terminator armor than a lasgun, or a sharp stick, or a blade of grass, or an open-handed slap. The Terminator armor is equally resilient against them all. This, I believe, is a mistake that can be rectified by introducing save modifiers. A lasgun, for example, could have no modifier, while the boltgun could have a humble -1. This, I believe, would reflect better the ability of the boltgun to penetrate the thinner plates of armor better than the lasgun, but still gives the Terminator a good chance for a save (i.e. the bolt hitting a thicker plate).

EDIT:
Crucially, the Boltgun in 2nd Edition (IIRC) was Str 4, with a -1 modifier, for a total of a -2 modifier to the target's armor (you got an additional - for every strength above 3). The lasgun was strength 3, but with a -2 modifier, meaning that both weapons could penetrate armor equally well, but the lasgun delivered less overall power. I believe this reflects the laser vs. solid projectile dichotomy quite well, although that's quite a simplification.

Or maybe the Bolter isn't better enough to warrant a difference?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Or maybe the Bolter isn't better enough to warrant a difference?

In that case, why does it warrant AP5 while the lasgun warrants AP- in the current AP system?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Or maybe the Bolter isn't better enough to warrant a difference?

In that case, why does it warrant AP5 while the lasgun warrants AP- in the current AP system?

Because it's much better than the Lasgun at penetrating Flakk Jackets, which are weaker than the weakest spots in Terminator Armour?