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.

Suggested Alteration for AP

So theres way too much AP2 and AP3 template stuff going on these days for my liking. This leads to huge numbers of units becoming pretty much useless, and craps all over the "one man army" fluff of space marines and terminators - and I say this as an Ork player who isn't affected in the slightest.

My suggestion, to help make these units less gak, is quite simply to modify how AP works. Instead of simply negating armour that it equals or beats, it will negate armour that it beats, whilst causing re-rolls of successful saves on armour that it equals.

IE, an AP3 weapon now causes space marines to re-roll successful saves. Meanwhile 4+ saves would be negated entirely. Plasma Cannons and such cause Terminators to re-roll successful saves, but munches power armour and such.

The result is that these weapons are still twice as effective against models of X armour class than they otherwise would be, but no longer the incredibly harsh, paper-scissor-rock style level of effecitveness.

Suggested Alteration to Cover

Cover saves are weird. The way they work now is rather unintuitive and frankly unhelpful a lot of the time, wherein units such as (again) Space Marines recieve zero bonus whatsoever against small arms when concealed in a piece of heavy cover.

What I would prefer is a cover system that benefits everyone. My suggestion for that is quite simple. Divide all cover into Light and Heavy. Light Cover gives a -1 BS penalty to enemy shooting attacks against a target in cover. Heavy Cover gives both this penalty, plus a +1 improvement to armour saves of troops in the cover. For the purposes of AP, their armour saves would be unmodified, but if negated they would have effectively a 6+ to fall back on.

What does dakka think? Consider this more in a casual environment - for me tournament 40k is dead and buried so I don't really care how Riptides and Taudar will react. The people I game with are generally open to new rules, so just running them by you guys before I suggest them for actual games

Re-roll is not enough, i think. Cause it's gona be exponentially woesening depending on armor and will make plazma and power-fists not worth the points anymore. What i suggest is taking a -2 penalty to armor instead. Thus, shooting at marines with ap2-3 weapons, they're gona have 5+ armor save, and shooting at termies or meganobz or any other 2+ guyz, 4+.

However, a difficult question remains. What to do with invulnerable saves? People pay for them plenty and now they're gona get models paying for 4++ and 5++ that's not gona be used. What do you think of it? Removing inv save completely won't work either cause there are lots of guyz fully relying on inv saves only.

So that's a rule that will require total reforging of many unit's gear and pricing.

I really like your solution, Dakkamite.

We might try it.

 Ashiraya wrote:
I really like your solution, Dakkamite.

We might try it.

Cheers man. Which one? Or are both up your alley?

Really appreciate posts even if all they say is "I like the idea", because it tells me I'm on the right track.

Re-roll is not enough, i think. Cause it's gona be exponentially woesening depending on armor and will make plazma and power-fists not worth the points anymore. What i suggest is taking a -2 penalty to armor instead. Thus, shooting at marines with ap2-3 weapons, they're gona have 5+ armor save, and shooting at termies or meganobz or any other 2+ guyz, 4+.

However, a difficult question remains. What to do with invulnerable saves? People pay for them plenty and now they're gona get models paying for 4++ and 5++ that's not gona be used. What do you think of it? Removing inv save completely won't work either cause there are lots of guyz fully relying on inv saves only.

So that's a rule that will require total reforging of many unit's gear and pricing.

This is why I like to submit the ideas for people to look at, always gonna miss something!

As to how we deal with invulns, I suggest the GW method - we do nothing. Look at terminator armour. Its still the same price it used to be, but its gotten infinitely worse due to the sheer quantity of AP2 templates. GW introduces something, such as AP2 templates, and then just allows the gamers 'market' to adjust without their assistance. The result is Terminators stop being used and other stuff increases in quantity.

The same thing should happen here. Invulns become less valueble and simply get used less. 2+ and 3+ and even 4+ become useful rather than expensive liabilities.

Quite frankly I'm ok with that tradeoff, even though the two factions I play are not benefitted or are even actively nerfed by both suggestions.

So, what do you think about minus to armor? I think it might be interesting to do:

If ap of the weapon is enough to go through armour - armour save goes on 2 less. for example, ap4 heavy bolter shoots at an 'ard boy - 'ard boy gets 6+ armor.
ap1 = ignore armor save

What i'm talking about are 2+ models without inv save. For example devastator cents or honor guard. they're gona have 4+ armor vs ap2. But they pay significantly less for their armor which gives the exact same bonuses to survivability vs ap2 as terminator armour but also doesn't disallow them sweeping advances. They loose deepstrike though, but it's rarely used anywayz.

I'm just pointing out that implementing either rerolls or penalty to armor and not completely negating it will bring a huge imballance which won't be easy to fix. Probably the best thing would be repricing units.

I don't like re-rolls on saves unless they affect all types of save equally. Otherwise you get the problem where you have to figure out if your best save is 3+ with a re-roll or a straight 4+. A fixed penalty is probably better.

Your cover rules seem OK, but how do they interact with going to ground, stealth, shrouded, etc? -1 to hit for each +1 cover save? That seems pretty powerful.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Suggested Alteration for AP

This is too inconsistent. If you want a save modifier system go all the way to a save modifier system, don't introduce a single save modifier into the existing AP system. Special-case rules like that are really awkward, and this particular one has a lot of collateral damage. Sure, you're nerfing Riptides, but you're also nerfing a lot of AP 2/3 weapons that don't need nerfing.

Suggested Alteration to Cover

This makes high-save models way too durable. Sure, it fixes some realism issues, but only at the cost of making heavy infantry pretty much immune to anything that isn't a dedicated MEQ/TEQ killer. Combined with your other change this would make terminators pretty much invulnerable in heavy cover: effectively 3+ armor save (really a 2+ armor save that re-rolls successes), with a -1 BS penalty to anything shooting at them. Against BS 4 shooters that's a 25% loss in damage, or a bit less than adding an extra 5+ FNP that can never be negated. Add in actual FNP or similar defensive bonuses and you have all of the "fun" of the re-rollable 2++ death stars.

I do agree that cover should be a to-hit modifier, but that change needs to happen along with a complete re-balancing of the entire game or it's just going to break too much stuff.

We currently use a system that changes cover saves to BS modifiers as well.

6+ cover = no penalty
5+/4+ cover = -1 BS
3+/2+ cover = -2 BS
1+ or better cover (Say, stealth and shrouded in a bunker) = -3 BS

The combination of the armour and cover system gives buffs to armour, which is good... (Makes 'ard boyz viable in some situations ) but there is one problem, and this problem is called Riptides.

I think the most popular and sensible change to 40k , ever posted .is making cover a modifier to hit.

Why the feth did they change it?

in reguards to the AP system.I prefer making the AP value a simple save reduction with out extra modifiers.

EG
AP 6 weapon IGNORES all armour save dice rolls that roll natural 6s.(-1 save mod )
AP 4 IGNORES all armour save dice rolls that roll natural 4,5 or 6. (-3 save mod.)

EG,
A Ork Nob in mega Armour .Passes an armour save roll on a roll of 2,3,4,5,6.

Hit ny a AP 6 weapon has save of 2,3,4,5.

Hit by a AP 5 weapon has a save of 2,3,4.

Hit by an AP 4 weapon has a save of 2 3.

Hit by an AP3 weapon only saves on a roll of a 2!

This would need to re evaluate all AP values .But it is the simplest way to use AP value and armour saves to get 'modifiers without maths.'

One "quick fix" for making terminator-like models survive low AP would be to add a rule stating that if model can make an armor save, it's invurnability saves also stack.

This means that current AP2 weapons would still be effective against terminators and the like, but make high cost models with armor+invulnerability save viable against hordes.

(This would not favor centurions thou).

How am i supposed to kill FMC with 3+ armor and 2++ invul with my boyz than

@Lanrak: I really like those rules, and they'd be amazing in a full reform of the rules.

@Riptides: While these rules may or may not help with the riptide problem, I never play them so I'm not really trying to create rules to fix them.

@flodihn: I could see this leading to models that get *stronger* if you pen their armour...

This is too inconsistent. If you want a save modifier system go all the way to a save modifier system, don't introduce a single save modifier into the existing AP system. Special-case rules like that are really awkward, and this particular one has a lot of collateral damage. Sure, you're nerfing Riptides, but you're also nerfing a lot of AP 2/3 weapons that don't need nerfing.

Your right, I'm nerfing AP too hard here. Its the template AP weapons, not the melee or direct shooting ones, that need a nerf - and this solution would make the former balanced (IMO at least) and the latter two considerably worse.

Talking of invunerables saves.
If you used the method I proposed.
INV saves can just ignore the effects of weapon AP, by a set amount.

Eg 6+ inv ignores the AP effect of weapons with AP6.
5+ Inv ignores the weapons AP effect of weapons with AP 5+

EG a Ork Nob in mega armour 2+ save.is hit by Heavy Bolter fire (AP5)

The ork nob saves on the roll of 2,3,or 4.(Rolls of 5 or 6 are ignored/removed.)

A teminator with AS 5 and 5+inv.
savves on the roll of 2,3,4,5,6.

So AP reduces save rolls, and Inv saves ignore the effect of the AP.

That's an odd system. Basically, ap3 will make 2+ models save only on a 2. And very common ap4 weapons will make 2+ models, save on a 2,3. Basically making 2+ models count as 5+. You'll need to redo all the ap on weapons to make this ballanced. For example, bolters having no ap (cause even ap 6 will be a HUGE buff), heavy bolters with ap6 and a bit more costly, all the current ap3 weapons having ap5. And plazmas - well, probably remain ap2 cause they should ignore any armor. Riptides pieplates go at ap4 so that 3+ models will have a 1/6 chance of saving and 2+ - 1/3 chance.

Hi koooaei.
Yes you would have to adjust current AP values to suit the new method.

My point was if you want to keep the 'modifiers' from the old rules of 40k.
BUT not have list of '-x to armour save.' ONLY using AP values , to make it easier for younger/new players.

This would be the simplest way to do it.
It uses the AP value as a base modifier, and allows inv saves to be used in a intuitive way, that gives proportional results.(And may reduce the need for additional rules.)

Btw this system is totally similar to plain modifiers which will be easier to apply, i think.

For example, ap5 weapon vs 3+ armor: saves on 3, 4 = 1/3 chance to save.
that's exactly a -2 modifier to current armor save system values: 5, 6 = 1/3 chance to save.

So, all in all, this system is the exact same with modifiers: ap6 = -1, ap5 = -2, etc.

The main issue I see with BS penalties is they hurt some armies more than others. With -1 to hit, Orks lose 50% of their firepower, whereas for Marines it's only 25%. Any To Hit penalty should keep that in mind, and used sparingly.

An alternative approach for cover could be to reduce weapon effectiveness above a certain distance. What if fire onto targets in cover from over half max range suffered -1 to strength/AP?

I'd be more inclined to penalize all long range shooting, not just that into cover.

What about taking saves in series instead of simulating them in parallel?

What I mean is, why not just allow armor saves to be taken after failed Cover, and Invulns after failed/ignored Armor?

It would imbalance some things as they are now, but when they adapt, it should be a better game.

I do like your ideas too.

 xttz wrote:
The main issue I see with BS penalties is they hurt some armies more than others. With -1 to hit, Orks lose 50% of their firepower, whereas for Marines it's only 25%. Any To Hit penalty should keep that in mind, and used sparingly.

An alternative approach for cover could be to reduce weapon effectiveness above a certain distance. What if fire onto targets in cover from over half max range suffered -1 to strength/AP?

Mind you, Orks still have the advantage that they are far less penalised when firing into heavier cover with my system.

They also effectively ignore jink on flyers. Makes sense, since Ork shooting is supposed to be equally lethal whether they are actually aiming at you or not.

Bharring wrote:
What about taking saves in series instead of simulating them in parallel?

What I mean is, why not just allow armor saves to be taken after failed Cover, and Invulns after failed/ignored Armor?

It would imbalance some things as they are now, but when they adapt, it should be a better game.

I do like your ideas too.

It would make things far too tough, and invulns/covers far too cheap for their new expanded abilities.

Personally I'd prefer something like this, if the various 'saves' were changed to be much lower than they are.

It's an inherent issue in the turn system I think. Of course things die fast when each 'shot' is a salvo.

You either fire a magazine or not at all.

Bharring wrote:
What I mean is, why not just allow armor saves to be taken after failed Cover, and Invulns after failed/ignored Armor?

You know how everyone hates re-rollable 2++ saves because they're incredibly frustrating to deal with? This is so much worse. Let's say you have a unit of BA TH/SS terminators in 4+ cover: that's a 2+ armor save, a 3+ invulnerable save, a 4+ cover save, and a 5+ FNP "save". You have a 1.85% chance to take a wound (if you get all your saves), compared with a 2.7% chance to take a wound with a re-rollable 2++. The whole game then bogs down in tedious hours of dice rolling where you throw your entire army at a single unit and hope that somehow they fail a save.

Then the answer is to break all available saves into groups, and any model may only take 1 save from each group.

Save Order
ranged
1) Cover OR Invulnerable
2) Armor
3) FnP

Melee
1) Armor OR Invulnerable
2) FnP

The terminator example is also flawed because there is a very accessible counter to two of their saves: Anti-Tank weapons. A lascannon will burn their 2+ armor save as well as their 5+ Fnp, whereas a 2++ is a 2++ forever, barring something like a vindicare assassin.

The current cover system is ridiculous, why do some similarly sized models get far more use out of the same piece of cover than others? I can see what the original idea may have been, in that models with good armor do not have to rely on cover, but thats no longer the case.

It seems like this role is what invulnerable saves would be better suited for, since you would think things like illusions, hallucinations, and energy shielding would behave similarly to cover in purpose and effect, in that they make sure that something that should have hit, didn't.

Rav1rn wrote:
Then the answer is to break all available saves into groups, and any model may only take 1 save from each group.

But that makes absolutely no sense. Why can I take an armor save and an invulnerable save against ranged attacks, but only one of them against melee attacks? Does the armor somehow magically become useless because a guardsman is pounding it with his fists instead of shooting it with his lasgun?

The terminator example is also flawed because there is a very accessible counter to two of their saves: Anti-Tank weapons. A lascannon will burn their 2+ armor save as well as their 5+ Fnp, whereas a 2++ is a 2++ forever, barring something like a vindicare assassin.

Yes, obviously you can negate some of those saves, but the point is that it's still extremely frustrating and it makes certain units way too durable. Stacking saves makes all of your bolters/lasguns/etc useless and reduces your army to the few models with heavy weapons. And that isn't fun.

The current cover system is ridiculous, why do some similarly sized models get far more use out of the same piece of cover than others? I can see what the original idea may have been, in that models with good armor do not have to rely on cover, but thats no longer the case.

Because it's an abstraction, and because making cover a to-hit modifier would require re-writing the entire system to make it work properly. GW isn't going to re-write the core rules, so changing cover isn't an option.

It seems like this role is what invulnerable saves would be better suited for, since you would think things like illusions, hallucinations, and energy shielding would behave similarly to cover in purpose and effect, in that they make sure that something that should have hit, didn't.

Again, stacking saves is broken. If you want to have stacking saves then you're going to have TH/SS terminators with 4+ armor and a 6+ invulnerable save to make it balanced. If you just allow existing saves to stack then models with multiple saves become too hard to kill.

To apply stacking saves,you'll have to reprice every single unit with invul. Cover saves will be too good and so will ignore-cover weapons be. There are just too many things dependant on this, so, this global changes will require a hell lot of work to ballance things out. You think GW stuff are dumb and don't want to create a ballenced ruleset? They do want, it's just really that hard when you allready have so many things to consider.

It's like developing and maintaining an old widely used software. The more new things apply - the more bugs appear. And you apply hot-fixes to this bugs. After a certain ammount of time the whole product is so unwieldy to develop and maintain that a not-very-accurate change will trigger an avalanche of new bugs. So that devs try to change minor aspects and avoid massive reforgings. Cause at a certain point it's just easier to write a wholy new product with all the aquired experience in mind rather than trying to pull a string out of a huge cocon hanging above your head.

That's the exact reason it's easier to apply small fixes to shift the ballance a bit without hurting too much. The moment you try to rewrite something founamental, you'll inevitably have a hellhuge ammount of things you need to fix once more.

Another option is to apply to changes and playtest them till all's settled. Noone will die if something goes wrong after all

The problem is when the old system is so out dated , that the patches are twice the size of the original system , and no one knows exactly how any thing actually interacts any more.

And everyone else has a new system that is faster and more user friendly.

What do you do then?

As i've told. U create a new system with all the gained experioence in mind. Though, it's gona be hard for 1 person.

Here we go again...

So, what are the results yet? =) Have you playtested the changes allready?