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.

Vehicles definitely took a hit in this edition. Granted, said hit is not entirely a bad thing, has APCs utterly dominated 5e and it was not uncommon to encounter list with upwards of 12 vehicles on the table. It got completely out of hand and some vehicle nerfs were in order. I actually like the idea of hull points, it makes killing vehicles a bit more consistent than the old system, although retaining the penetrating damage table means the vehicles suffer "the worst of both worlds" and tend to be rather fragile. Non-skimmer vehicles with armor values less than 13 have seem to largely disappear under the new rules.

In regard to Ailaros' comments:

You can dismiss the fact that it IS harder to shut down tanks without destroying them because "they're flimsier"

This is more than a fair trade. You trade a glancing hit, which very often could be irrelevant anyway, for a hull point. Most players would gladly make this trade when tank hunting (just ask any Necron player). Penetrating hits still shut down tanks AND take a hull point. It is far easier to kill tanks under these rules.

and you can dismiss the fact that they get cover saves more easily because "they're flimsier"

As Vaktathi has pointed up, under most circumstances this save have been reduced to 5+. So while it is easier to get the save, it does far less. And its still harder to get with vehicles than the real 6e winners, MCs, who can gain a cover save by sticking one of their toes in area terrain.

and you can dismiss that their shooting was improved because "they're flimsier"

and that that vehicles can now fire more weapons on the move because "they're flimsier"

But their shooting arguably has not improve. For fast vehicles (mainly Eldar), shooting is superior. However, defensive weapons have been removed entirely meaning normal vehicles must snap fire all but a single weapon if they moved at all, which is hardly overpowering. I actually think vehicle firing rules are too restricting, if it were up to me, all vehicles save walkers would be able to fire one weapon at cruising speed (fast could fire all) and all weapons at combat speed. Isn't moving and shooting the whole point of putting your weapons on vehicles? And don't get me started on comparing vehicle firing restrictions to those of flyers.

and you can dismiss transports firing overwatch because "they're flimsier"

Again, this is more than a fair trade of the many other losses transports suffer, as you cannot score out of them (I do agree that this is a justified change), you can't assault out of them, and the passengers now suffer the effects of vehicle shaken and vehicle stunned.

and you can ignore the 48 rules that made close combat worse and thus not likely to ever happen to tanks because "they're flimsier"

Well, you actually can ignore most of the rules that make combat worse when it comes to assaulting vehicles, because assaulting vehicles is now like shooting fish in a barrel. It is not like you need dedicated assault units or anything of the sort. Just get somebody with either str4+ or grenades close enough and they can usually tear apart the vehicle in CC with little to no risk to the assaulting unit. This is a huge change from 5e were cruising vehicles would often drive away from assault unscathed because assaulters needed 6s to hit as opposed to 3+.

that the vehicle pen chart is more generous to vehicles because "they're flimsier"

Only by one point, easily a fair trade for that hull point. No more vehicles driving away after 5 pens because you couldn't roll for gak on the vehicle damage table.

or that vehicle destroyed results are randomized because "they're flimsier"

Only really matters against MBTs, while weapon destroyed was often and undesired results against APCs. Personally, I never liked that fact that a 130+ tank could be neutralized for the rest of the game from a single glancing hit. This helps to even out the grossly disproportionate effects of weapon destroyed on vehicles, and is hardly unfair.

or that units inside a transport can now target different units than their transport because "they're flimsier"

Unless I am mistaken, they could already do this in 5e.

and you can ignore all of the structural advantages to vehicles like allowing you to basically (or literally) ignore terrain for the purposes of movement

Not certain what you are even referring to here, but the way vehicles interact with terrain hasn't changed.

and the fact that there are whole swaths of weapons that can't even hurt them because "they're flimsier"

Again, this was always the case, it is not a new 6e thing. If any thing, larger ranges of weapons have become viable thanks to hull points. Gauss in particular went from a joke to absolutely deadly against vehicles.

Let's say that you play a game where your opponent puts down 6 vehicles, and you put down 6 units that are guaranteed to put down exactly one glancing hit per turn. In 5th edition, the game would have started with you putting a glancing hit on each of his vehicles, shutting them down that turn (with shaken or stunned results) or possibly the entire game (like a weapon destroyed or immobilized result on a vindicator). For the rest of the game, your opponent does nothing as he slowly starts losing vehicles to stacked immobilized/weapon destroyed results. The end result is a comprehensive victory with no losses and with some amount of your opponent's stuff dead.

Now move that to 6th edition. In this case, you use your 6 glances to strip 6 hull points, and kill two vehicles. The other 4 vehicles are fine, and they turn their righteous anger at your guns killing some number of them. That means you're not killing 2 vehicles next turn, which means your opponent has relatively more to shoot you with than the previous turn. The vehicle player still loses a few vehicles, but the non-vehicle player loses everything, and the person with the tanks won.

That's a colossal difference. Replacing "one and done" glancing with hull points with hull points makes it so that vehicles can actually do their jobs, which means that they can break out of their old constraints and be properly useful, especially earlier in the game.

Damaging vehicles never worked this neatly. Sometimes you could pour fire into them a fail to glance or pen at all, other times a single AT volley would cause several glances and pens. Sometimes a single pen would explode a vehicle, while other times vehicles would repeatedly suffer multiple shaken/stunned results with no cumulative effect, with the stun often getting downgraded to shaken thanks to wargear. Tank hunting was a very fickle and unreliable operation in 5e, while hull points make it far easier in 6e.

In regard to stunlocked, often this is not even possible. Most IoM APCs, alongside Eldar, Chaos and Orkz have wargear that downgrades stunned to shaken. In 5e, these vehicles were free to move around, tank shock, take objectives, and disembark their passengers who could shoot and under some circumstances assault to full effect regardless of how many shaken or stunned results they took, while the stock bolters and other minor arms on the vehicles absorbed any weapon destroyed results these APCs took. Basically, the APCs needed to either be outright destroyed or immobilized (and sometimes even that could be undone) to actually be stopped. So that whole idea of stunlocking never even worked against a large number of vehicles in 5e.

 Ailaros wrote:
Either transports were able to do a good job keeping their troops from getting killed, in which case their loss of scoring without getting out was a necessity

Isn't that part of their purpose?

In any case, the return to vehicles being able to be glanced to death (this only wasn't possible in a single rules edition) is balanced against a lot of gains. You can dismiss the fact that it IS harder to shut down tanks without destroying them because "they're flimsier"

Killing them shuts them down, yes that does dismiss that.

and you can dismiss the fact that transports do move more quickly because "they're flimsier"

It's not just that they're flimsier (which is a big one), their utility has plummeted. Before they could contest objectives and score with an embarked unit, units could assault out of stationary transports, and infantry could disembark and fire after moving up to 12". Also, for tracked tanks, they have to give up their one defensive mechanism (smoke) to get that enhanced movement, while skimmers are rewarded with a cover save for the same movement.

and you can dismiss the fact that they get cover saves more easily because "they're flimsier",

Yes, because average cover saves are less effective and cover ignoring weapons and abilities are significantly more common.

and you can dismiss that their shooting was improved because "they're flimsier",

Shooting's improvement is marginal at best. Hitting on 6's with secondary weapons while moving is nice, but isn't a particularly vast increase. Not being shaken/stunned on glancing hits too is nice, but, due to the decreased lifespan, doesn't mean you're getting any more utility out of the tanks because as often as not they'll be dead when previously they'll just have been temporarily disabled.

and you can dismiss the added survivability to squadrons thanks to much better rules because "they're flimsier",

The squadron rules are better, but outside of one army it applies to relatively few units that are generally already hilariously easy to kill. Also, the 5E squadron rules were amongst the most punitive they've ever been, so just about anything would be an improvement.

and you can dismiss transports firing overwatch because "they're flimsier"

Yes we can dismiss it, not just because tanks are flimsier, but the fact that such overwatch isn't available on many transports (not everything is open topped or has firing ports) and won't do much on most others unless loaded with flame units. Simple fact is, usually doesn't amount to anything (not saying it can't ever be useful, but such instances will be atypical, highly so if the unit isn't packing a number of flamers)

and you can ignore the 48 rules that made close combat worse and thus not likely to ever happen to tanks because "they're flimsier",

Except many of them don't mean squat against tanks. They don't get overwatch. They are hit super easy. They have huge bodies that make getting into contact very easy. No, the MEQ mechanized assaults of yesteryear and wave of power armored assault troops doesn't work. Units like SM Bikers (especially White Scars and Dark Angel Bikers), Necron Wraiths, etc with inherent natural speed and "alternative to armor" saves are highly capable, particularly at tank hunting, in 6E.

and that that vehicles can now fire more weapons on the move because "they're flimsier",

Addressed this. Yes, it's nice, but it's a minor wildcard factor, the two sponson gun's needing 6's to hit isn't going to overly worry most opponents.

or that the vehicle pen chart is more generous to vehicles because "they're flimsier"

It's more generous if it's not AP1 or AP2 (i.e. stuff that's going to more likely kill through HP's anyway) otherwise it's the same. And yes, if you'd read the math above you'd see that it doesn't make a whole lot of difference because of how the HP's overlap as a kill system. Can you imagine how fragile tanks would be if every pen still killed on a 5?

and that glancing hits no longer cause system damage (or shaken or stunned results) because "they're flimsier",

Yup, because, once again, where before you may have been stunned or damaged, now you're just plain dead instead instead of the singular case of two glancing hits over two different turns and no more than that.

or that vehicle destroyed results are randomized because "they're flimsier",

Weapon destroyed you mean? Again, yes, but many vehicles only have one weapon anyway, and when your expected lifespan is 33-50% lower, thing's don't look so good. Couple that with the fact that you're more likely to get those 3 HP's off before you get a "1 in 6 on a X in 6" Weapon Destroyed result, and it's not so rosy.

or that units inside a transport can now target different units than their transport because "they're flimsier",

Unless I played every game of 5E wrong for 4 years, that's not new.

and you can ignore all of the structural advantages to vehicles like allowing you to basically (or literally) ignore terrain for the purposes of movement

If you're a skimmer. Otherwise you treat it the same way jump infantry and bikers do, as Dangerous Terrain.

and the fact that there are whole swaths of weapons that can't even hurt them because "they're flimsier".

Many weapons can't hurt a Wraithlord or C'tan either. A Trygon doesn't have to worry about an Autocannon inflicting Instant Death on it with a lucky roll.

You can say what you want, but solipsistic nerdrage about hull points wasn't useful 20 months ago, and it's still not useful now.

Leave the insults please.

Vehicles have changed, and for the better.

And yet, aside from some of the Skimmer xenos armies, they're fielded in notably fewer quantities with notably less frequency than in 5E. This isn't exactly a secret.

The inability after years of play to realise that hull points didn't cause tanks to fall apart like soggy cardboard doesn't change that.

and you've given zero evidence to support it, only a lot of excuses why it shouldn't matter.

Also, consider this as an example:

Let's say that you play a game where your opponent puts down 6 vehicles, and you put down 6 units that are guaranteed to put down exactly one glancing hit per turn. In 5th edition, the game would have started with you putting a glancing hit on each of his vehicles, shutting them down that turn (with shaken or stunned results) or possibly the entire game (like a weapon destroyed or immobilized result on a vindicator). For the rest of the game, your opponent does nothing as he slowly starts losing vehicles to stacked immobilized/weapon destroyed results. The end result is a comprehensive victory with no losses and with some amount of your opponent's stuff dead.

Now move that to 6th edition. In this case, you use your 6 glances to strip 6 hull points, and kill two vehicles. The other 4 vehicles are fine, and they turn their righteous anger at your guns killing some number of them. That means you're not killing 2 vehicles next turn, which means your opponent has relatively more to shoot you with than the previous turn. The vehicle player still loses a few vehicles, but the non-vehicle player loses everything, and the person with the tanks won.

That's a colossal difference. Replacing "one and done" glancing with hull points with hull points makes it so that vehicles can actually do their jobs, which means that they can break out of their old constraints and be properly useful, especially earlier in the game.

Having read this example, I really really do get where it's going, but it's based on a perfect fantasy premise that simply doesn't exist in the game, as the presence of any penetrating hits or any imbalance of weaponry negates it. I can't help but attack the premise. The assumptions under which this works are so detached from the reality of the game as to be irrelevant.

First, you're never going to be assured of anything, plain and simple. Assuming can generate exactly 1 glancing hit per turn per vehicle (with no pens and no going over or under 1 per vehicle) is not something that's possible. You could probably work it out so you *averaged* one glance per vehicle per turn, but that's not the same thing. It also leads into point number 2...

Second, you probably didn't forget all your heavy AT weapons at home. Unless we're talking an bunch of scatterlasers (and nothing heavier) against an AV12 Chimera wall or something similar (in which case you've brought a gakky army list in the first place), anything you'd throw at these vehicles that isn't desperation fire is going to be penetrating at least as often, if not singificantly more, as it will be glancing (especially if another armor facing is able to be engaged) thus throwing off the whole equation

Third your AT usually won't be able to each be so neatly allocated. If you've got something like Havocs they have to put all that firepower into one unit, meaning you just can't split your AT up enough to accomplish that. Alternatively you may have more than enough weapons to possibly get 2+ hits on some or all of the vehicles, in which case the advantage of HP's also disappears.

Fourth, this is assuming all of the vehicles involved are gun tanks with significant firepower and are able to respond at the same range as your glancing AT weapons. This is rarely the case. Not all the vehicles may have sufficient range (e.g. Vindicators). Some may be relatively lightly armed (effectively unarmed) transports. Some may not have the appropriate firepower to engage your AT assets (it be trying to plug a couple Bright Lances into your glance capable infantry squad in cover or may be trying to ineffectually heavy flamer the front of your hydra)

Fifth this assumes no other assets on the opponents half with which to engage your AT assets except their own tanks, and that your glance capable weapons may not also have other targets like MC's or enemy infantry.


This is the problem with the HP's versus Shaken/Stunned tradeoff, it only works out under very specific matching conditions that you're probably never going to see on a table. If there's an imbalance in the weapons-to-enemy-tank ratio, weapon allocation, weapon effectiveness, any assymetry in targeting, or penetrating and/or multiple hits come into play (both of which are likely pretty much assured in any game you play), then the HP advantage is lost. Outside of this highly unlikely constructed scenario, the tanks are notably better off with the 5E rules.



Ultimately yes, tanks got some neat stuff. However they lost so much durability, transport, and objective utility that ultimately vehicles end up notably less effective and capable. The armies you see routinely rolling with lots of armor (particularly mid AV vehicles that do something other than hide in the back) are either Necrons (with their great flyers and generous flyer transport rules, enhanced rear armor and AV13 shields to block most HP-chipping weapons and get skimmer saves on top of that and an additional HP on their ground transport) or Eldar/Tau (which can roll around the table the entire game with 4+ or 3+ cover saves in the open).

I would rather have my Land Raider loose Hull Points rather than be unable do anything usful.
Now A single Las-Cannon will not Shut Down My Vidicator for the entire game making it compleatly useless from turn one.
With the new Wound Alication My Land Speeders are actualy standing longer.

I Love Hull Points

 Anpu42 wrote:
I would rather have my Land Raider loose Hull Points rather than be unable do anything usful.

LR's are a bit different. They have 4 HP's rather than 3. Just about everything that can hurt them is AP1 or AP2 so you have a higher likelyhood to be exploded on a hit anyway than normal (not to mention the frequently employed anti-land raider Melta weapons almost never glance) and are generally single shot (so mass glances are less likely) so strictly in those terms 6E isn't quite as punitive as it is for other vehicles.

That said, before PotMS would still allow you to fire a weapon if shaken, and statistically-identical-to-explodes-result chance of a Stun could be mitigated by Extra Armor. Now the average number of lascannons the opponent needs to throw at you to average a kill on your Land Raider is reduced by a third going from 5E damage table to 6E HP's, even with the "bonus" 4th HP, while the chance of that lascannon killing you outright on the damage table stays the same and sticks around on top of the HP's too and you still can suffer a stunned result.

So, basically, it saves you from having to buy Extra Armor as often while drastically decreasing the lifespan of your highly important and very expensive tank.

Now A single Las-Cannon will not Shut Down My Vidicator for the entire game making it compleatly useless from turn one.

Except it can still do that, and the average number of lascannon hits required to kill it, simply via HP's, dropped by a third, just as with the Land Raider, on top of the Lascannon still being able to insta-kill it, blow off its cannon, or stun it, particularly as a lascannon will penetrate more often than it glances.


Effectively you're dropping a 1/9-chance-per-lascannon-hit drop in shaken/stunned results and a 1-in-18-chance-per-lascannon-hit drop in WP/IM results. In other words, you're trading a risk of a 1-in-6 chance of damage (2/3rd's of which are non-permanent and non-stacking) on a hit, for a 1/3 drop in average number of hits expected to be required to kill you (and that's not counting the still present, and overlapping, Explodes result). That doesn't sound like a fair trade-off to me.

Again, as I noted on the previous page, you're better off if you take one or two glancing hits on separate turns, but in any other circumstance you're worse off.

Not to mention the even more vast differences in melee combat or the inability to contest objectives either further decreasing lifespan and utility.

With the new Wound Alication My Land Speeders are actualy standing longer.

Hrm,I dunno about that. Not only are speeders still very light and very vulnerable to HP attack, but they've also only got 2 HP's. Against high Strength, low AP, single shot weapons like Lascannons (aiming to get the Explodes result on a small number of die), they will be a bit better off under 6E since they dropped the "immobilized=dead" rule when run as a squadron of 2 or more, but worse off as a unit of one. Against multishot medium Strength, high AP weapons, on average they'll be worse off both as a squadron of 2+, and as a unit of one.

5th edition vehicles were better in some ways, worse in others. Stun locking MBTs was incredibly frustrating, and as others have mentioned it was pretty easy to blow the weapon and end up with a paperweight for the rest of the game. Hull points have (sort of) stopped this from happening, but at the expense of making it a lot easier to wreck the vehicle. Cover saves I'll grant are easier to get, especially if you're a skimmer.

What always REALLY frustrated me though was comparing monstrous creatures to vehicles. MCs had and still have no damage table, so their combat effectiveness is the same whether they've eaten one shot or a dozen. The fact that they have a save also adds a LOT to their resiliency over vehicles. I wouldn't think twice about shooting an auto cannon at a Rhino. I wouldn't bother shooting it at an MC, especially if it has FNP. MCs even come out on top for cover saves in 6th because they now benefit from area terrain, which was not true in 5th.

The Change to Hull points is Good for the Land Speeder [or any Squadron nowadays]
5th Edition Glance/Penetration Allocation: In 5th if you took 2 Glances and a Penetration it was spread out evenly between them all. This usually ended up with one Shaken/Stunned one with a Weapon Destroyed and one Destroyed/Exploded. This usually meant no movement the next turn or at the very least no shooting for what was left.

6th Edition Glance/Penetration Allocation: Now The closest one takes the Penetrating Hit [or at least I would if I had done the shooting] Hoping to get an Exploded Result, if not you are usually inflicting a Weapon Destroyed or Immobilized effect. The 1st Glace make it a second HP and that Land Speeder is now Wrecked and the second Glace strips 1 HP off the Second Land Speeder. I now have 2 Active Land Speeders. A little Movement Shenanigans and the fresh one is now up front to absorb a glance. This also works for Leman Russ’s.

It's very dependent on the type and number of hits you are taking and how dice rolls come out.

If, in your example, the first speeder does explode, both HP's go on #2 and you lose two speeders, with one unscathed in 6E, whereas in 5E you'd still likely have two left.

If you took *more* hits, say 1 pen and 3 glances, in 5E you could have wrapped that 3rd glance onto the speeder that took the penetrating hit and you'd end up no worse, while in 6E it leaves you one bolter glance from death on the last speeder if the first one blew up, or are down 2 for sure if it didn't, while in 5E you have a decent chance of all 3 still being alive or at least still having 2. If we up it to one pen and 4 glances, in 6E you lose 2 for sure, possibly all 3, while in 5E you have a higher chance of more skimmers leaving, even if they have a higher chance individually of taking damage table results (still with free EA however)).

 Vaktathi wrote:
It's very dependent on the type and number of hits you are taking and how dice rolls come out.

If, in your example, the first speeder does explode, both HP's go on #2 and you lose two speeders, with one unscathed in 6E, whereas in 5E you'd still likely have two left.

If you took *more* hits, say 1 pen and 3 glances, in 5E you could have wrapped that 3rd glance onto the speeder that took the penetrating hit and you'd end up no worse, while in 6E it leaves you one bolter glance from death on the last speeder if the first one blew up, or are down 2 for sure if it didn't, while in 5E you have a decent chance of all 3 still being alive or at least still having 2. If we up it to one pen and 4 glances, in 6E you lose 2 for sure, possibly all 3, while in 5E the chance that all 3 would be destroyed is significantly lower.

Yes, but in 6th I now can Do something after I am glanced
The exaple I also gave happened to me twice in 6th that is why I posted it as my example.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
It's very dependent on the type and number of hits you are taking and how dice rolls come out.

If, in your example, the first speeder does explode, both HP's go on #2 and you lose two speeders, with one unscathed in 6E, whereas in 5E you'd still likely have two left.

If you took *more* hits, say 1 pen and 3 glances, in 5E you could have wrapped that 3rd glance onto the speeder that took the penetrating hit and you'd end up no worse, while in 6E it leaves you one bolter glance from death on the last speeder if the first one blew up, or are down 2 for sure if it didn't, while in 5E you have a decent chance of all 3 still being alive or at least still having 2. If we up it to one pen and 4 glances, in 6E you lose 2 for sure, possibly all 3, while in 5E the chance that all 3 would be destroyed is significantly lower.

Yes, but in 6th I now can Do something after I am glanced
The exaple I also gave happened to me twice in 6th that is why I posted it as my example.

I'm not saying that in some situations there can't be some ways 6E ends up running better, but they're very narrow and highly situational as shown. If you add in more shots or that first speeder expolodes, the equation changes dramatically. The speeders with only 2 HP's are still generally better off under the 5E rules.

Now, if you wanted to talk Leman Russ Squadrons (as opposed to Land Speeder squadrons, or individual Leman Russ tanks), then those actually do end up with a more meaningful advantage over 5E squadrons, due to having higher armor and 3 HP's (instead of 2) and no longer having the "immobilzed=dead" result in there (plus most weapons that can pen their armor are AP1 or AP2 and thus explosions become more of a concern than multi-shot Ap3/4/5/6 weapons chipping away lots of HP's). That said, single Leman Russ tanks, or if you get into Melee combat at all, still very heavily favors 5E.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
It's very dependent on the type and number of hits you are taking and how dice rolls come out.

If, in your example, the first speeder does explode, both HP's go on #2 and you lose two speeders, with one unscathed in 6E, whereas in 5E you'd still likely have two left.

If you took *more* hits, say 1 pen and 3 glances, in 5E you could have wrapped that 3rd glance onto the speeder that took the penetrating hit and you'd end up no worse, while in 6E it leaves you one bolter glance from death on the last speeder if the first one blew up, or are down 2 for sure if it didn't, while in 5E you have a decent chance of all 3 still being alive or at least still having 2. If we up it to one pen and 4 glances, in 6E you lose 2 for sure, possibly all 3, while in 5E the chance that all 3 would be destroyed is significantly lower.

Yes, but in 6th I now can Do something after I am glanced
The exaple I also gave happened to me twice in 6th that is why I posted it as my example.

I'm not saying that in some situations there can't be some ways 6E ends up running better, but they're very narrow and highly situational as shown. If you add in more shots or that first speeder expolodes, the equation changes dramatically. The speeders with only 2 HP's are still generally better off under the 5E rules.

Now, if you wanted to talk Leman Russ Squadrons (as opposed to Land Speeder squadrons, or individual Leman Russ tanks), then those actually do end up with a more meaningful advantage over 5E squadrons, due to having higher armor and 3 HP's (instead of 2) and no longer having the "immobilzed=dead" result in there (plus most weapons that can pen their armor are AP1 or AP2 and thus explosions become more of a concern than multi-shot Ap3/4/5/6 weapons chipping away lots of HP's). That said, single Leman Russ tanks, or if you get into Melee combat at all, still very heavily favors 5E.

Yes that is very true, I would have talked about Russ's, but I realy don't have much experiance with them.

In 5th I could (and did sometimes) kill a vehicle with a single glancing hit due to the effect of AP 1.