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.

@Luke Proiwler.
The wall is basically light cover to the Space Marine, making him harder to see and hit.
Therefore intuitive rules would have it make the Space Marine harder to hit.It should not replace his armour save!!!

It is like there was a choice between simple rules that make sense for a 40k battle game.And simple rules that do not make any sense for a 40k battle game.

And the GW game devs just plumped for the wrong choice for practically every option in 3rd ed 40k .

Its yet another layer of defense, its not something the game needs.

Lanrak wrote:
@Mallich.
Thanks for explaining that.

This is probably where the difference of opinion is .
Gaming companies write rules that let players interact within a defined sphere of intuitive tactical and strategic choices.
There is no predisposition to a specific outcome like there is in narrative focused writing.

If I want strong predetermined narrative I would by a novel or watch a film.

Forcing the narrative on the players is not the job of a good war game rule set.
Its letting the players write their own narrative, within the frame work of the tactical and strategic choices the war game rule set presents.

Respectfully, I don't entirely agree. While it is important to reward decision-making, I didn't really get into 40k strictly for the game mechanics. The fluff and aesthetic have always been the main draw for me, and I love rules that provide the "feel" of a given faction or narrative. I enjoy GSC's ambush mechanics because they capture the cinematic feeling of fighting an enemy that constantly jumps out at you like a horror movie antagonist. I liked the 5th edition Power From Pain rules because it "felt" good to be rewarded for hurting non-vehicle units the wya dark eldar ought to. I like that striking scorpions have shrouded until they stab or shoot something because they're still in "stealth mode." To me, these rules are all "cinematic" in that they encourage you to do things your faction might do in a narrative. It brings out the flavor of the armies. Similarly, I enjoy heavily narrative missions (even if they're not terribly well balanced) that help to tell a story. I'll take my FLGS's narrative event where we were attacking a moving ork train over the "drunk commander" games of pure maelstrom any day. XD

It's not a great comparison, but one of the things I always look for in a tabletop RPG is the game's ability to bring out evocative, flavorful imagery with its rules. In New World of Darkness's Changeling game, there's very much a feeling of paranoia and recovery. In Monsters and Other Childish Things, you can use your relationships with other characters to gain mechanical rewards and advance the story. In 40k, genestealers jump out of shadows. That sort of thing.

Which again, isn't to say that decision making isn't important. Just that there are those of us who do appreciate a healthy dose of narrative-oriented rules. To use another bad example, 4th edition D&D is generally considered not to have done very well, and one common complain is that players are forced to do a lot of reading between the lines in order to have flavorful abilities rather than a grab bag of WoW-style damaging powers. Pathfinder, on the other hand, did very well during the 4th edition era (and does well to this day) due in part to its abundance of flavorful rules.

... *ahem* But that's probably a topic for another thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Haravikk wrote:

Arson Fire wrote:
Some other games have cover work as a To Hit modifier, which makes a lot more sense.

The problem is that roll modifiers on a 1D6 system like 40k are much more swingy than on a 2D6 system like warmahordes. So it's not easy to just port across the mechanic.

The "swingy" problem was overcome by also having hit bonuses; I can't remember exactly how 2nd edition did it, but Necromunda has hit bonuses at half range, and so cover is less of an advantage at close range, because good cover is a -2 to-Hit, but your pistols at half range (and ranges are longer in Necromunda) are +2 to-Hit so it cancels out, though obviously someone in the open is still easier to hit.

I always liked that system; some people think it's too complex, because you have to add up modifiers, but aside from an initial learning curve to remember the relevant bonuses I never found it that hard to get used to.

I think you touch on an important point. Necromunda is a game that is much smaller in scale where you can afford to zoom in on important pieces of action a bit more. To me, things like intricate cover modifiers are well-suited for this smaller scale but less well-suited for larger games where the extra detail either doesn't scale up well mechanically.

I'm not opposed to something like a to-hit modifier for cover, but I'm also not opposed to leaving the cover system relatively unchanged. Sure, a shot that goes through a wall and hits a guy in power armor would be less likely to deal mortal injury. Yes, a marine hiding behind some rubble is harder to hit and hurt than a marine standing out in the open. To my mind, however, expecting cover to directly increase a marine's life expectancy against small arms fire may be a bit too literal an interpretation of the situation. I think of the situation as an abstraction. The shot that kills a marine in cover didn't necessarily go through the chest-high wall he was standing behind on your tabletop. The wall represents a whole mess of terrain and debris. A cover save doesn't necessarily represent every single bullet going through a wall before reaching the marine. It might just represent that, while the marine's armor is generally proof against the enemy's lasguns, he had to bob, weave, and duck behind terrain to avoid the occassional lascannon shot.

So to me, cover saves as they stand aren't meant to represent a sandbags catching every bullet before they reach a ceramite-clad model. They represent the model falling back on aim-deterrents or thick walls against weapons that their armor isn't proof against already. Similarly, difficult terrain tests don't represent every single model moving X units of distance instead of the normal Y units of distance; they represent a patch of ground being tough to move through and thus potentially slowing down less sure-footed models. Counting the number of models under a blast template doesn't mean that X guys were literally hit by the explosion so much as it abstractly determines how on-target an explosive round was fired and how closely clumped-together the target unit was.

Stacking cover saves and to-hit modifiers are all cool ideas, but I feel they might be more at home in Combat Patrol, Heralds of Ruin, or Necromunda.

@Wyldhunt.
You gave examples of re-enforcing a narrative theme of an army, or unit.And using narrative missions.
None of which I have a problem with.

My point was when a game company write rules specifically focused on the intended game play and the associated tactical and strategic choices the players make.
They set the frame work of the player interaction , usually in an unobtrusive and intuitive way.

The core rules deliver the 'meat and potatoes' of the game play, and the 'special rule herbs and spices' are sprinkled sparingly on top to enhance the flavor.
(Special rules for actual special abilities, and army wide special rules for thematic enhancement.)

My point was because 40k has had no clearly defined game play since 3rd ed.The game devs have got very heavy handed with the use of special rules.
To the point where they are defining how they think the players should use the units in very restricted roles.(Forcing the narrative.)

This removes tactical options in the game, and its a case of use a unit with the most special rules suited to that specific role .This is great for increasing the range of minatures with slight differences .But kills the game play from a tactical point of view.

Other war games let players experiment with the strengths and weaknesses of their units, to find their own play style with any particular set of units.

An important factor is you can use a 'fluff' explanation to justify ANY rule you care to write.
So why not use INTUITIVE rules that deliver PROPORTIONAL results?

Also why do people insist on putting forward false dichotomies?There are far more options to look at than 2nd ed 40k way or 3rd ed 40k way

Because an intuitive rule that makes an already durable unit near invincible isn't a good rule.

@CrownAxe.
What exactly is your point?

Was it...
The fact that the AP system of resolving weapon and armour interaction is severely flawed on several levels.
And without changing this and other less optimal rules 40k was stuck with since 3rd ed.
There is no way a single straightforward intuitive rule that gives proportional results .Can have a positive impact on the current mess the of the 40k 7th ed rule set?

In which case I agree with you.

That is why I posted ''So why not use INTUITIVE rules that deliver PROPORTIONAL results? ''.

Rules in the plural, inferring a complete set of rules written this way, EG a complete rule set.

 CrownAxe wrote:
Because an intuitive rule that makes an already durable unit near invincible isn't a good rule.

Marines aren't durable once you start giving them equipment.

Lanrak wrote:@CrownAxe.
What exactly is your point?

Was it...
The fact that the AP system of resolving weapon and armour interaction is severely flawed on several levels.
And without changing this and other less optimal rules 40k was stuck with since 3rd ed.
There is no way a single straightforward intuitive rule that gives proportional results .Can have a positive impact on the current mess the of the 40k 7th ed rule set?

In which case I agree with you.

That is why I posted ''So why not use INTUITIVE rules that deliver PROPORTIONAL results? ''.

Rules in the plural, inferring a complete set of rules written this way, EG a complete rule set.

Stacking Cover saves (or to hit modifiers) DOES NOT deliver proportional results though. That is my entire problem.

Martel732 wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Because an intuitive rule that makes an already durable unit near invincible isn't a good rule.

Marines aren't durable once you start giving them equipment.

I'm not talking about marines. I know you've only played a marine army for 20 years but there are more units in the game then "Space Marine".

Make it really hard for big stuff to get cover. Or just say big stuff can never have cover.

Martel732 wrote:
Make it really hard for big stuff to get cover. Or just say big stuff can never have cover.

I didn't realize

Necron Wraith
Decurion Necrons
Plague Marines
Tzeentch Daemons stacking invul buffs
Artillery like the Thudd Gun
TH/SS Termies (not good but they are durable)
Grimoire of True Names on any daemon unit
Azreal buffed Infantry blobs
Plague Zombies
Thunder Wolves

Were all considered "Big Stuff" so should have troulbe getting cover saves

We were just thinking of different units. Most of those units need a price increase.

Martel732 wrote:
We were just thinking of different units. Most of those units need a price increase.

Yes those are some undercosted units.

But you can't balance for stacking cover saves with point cost

@CrownAxe.
I am not quite understanding you objection?
I never suggested stacking 40k cover saves and 40k armour saves.
(The AP system , (along with cover saves,) are another restrictive , counter intuitive ,and poorly applied rule.)

Modifiers to the chance of a successful hit, by definition delivers proportional results in a intuitive way.

Eg
To hit a model in the open =3+
To hit the same model in light cover=4+
To hit the same model in heavy cover=5+

The model that is harder to see,and therefore hit,Is proportionally harder to see and hit.
How is this not intuitive or proportional?

Its a form of stacking saves, because now cover applies as well as armor.

Lanrak wrote:
@CrownAxe.
I am not quite understanding you objection?
I never suggested stacking 40k cover saves and 40k armour saves.
(Cover saves are another restrictive , counter intuitive ,and poorly applied rule.)

Modifiers to the chance of a successful hit, by definition delivers proportional results in a intuitive way.

Eg
To hit a model in the open =3+
To hit the same model in light cover=4+
To hit the same model in heavy cover=5+

The model that is harder to see,and therefore hit,Is proportionally harder to see and hit.
How is this not intuitive or proportional?

That is literally the same as stacking armor and cover saves. You just have different numbers

For example the difference between the 3+ to hit in the open and 5+ to hit is a 50% reduction in damage. This is the exact same as if you had a 4+ stackable cover save

What you don't seem to get is that multple source of defense combined is bad, regardless of if you call it "intuitive and proportional" or not

 CrownAxe wrote:

Lanrak wrote:
@CrownAxe.
I am not quite understanding you objection?
I never suggested stacking 40k cover saves and 40k armour saves.
(Cover saves are another restrictive , counter intuitive ,and poorly applied rule.)

Modifiers to the chance of a successful hit, by definition delivers proportional results in a intuitive way.

Eg
To hit a model in the open =3+
To hit the same model in light cover=4+
To hit the same model in heavy cover=5+

The model that is harder to see,and therefore hit,Is proportionally harder to see and hit.
How is this not intuitive or proportional?

That is literally the same as stacking armor and cover saves. You just have different numbers

For example the difference between the 3+ to hit in the open and 5+ to hit is a 50% reduction in damage. This is the exact same as if you had a 4+ stackable cover save

What you don't seem to get is that multple source of defense combined is bad, regardless of if you call it "intuitive and proportional" or not

I think there's some merit to the idea. Yes, it makes units that are in cover more durable against shooting. In a shooty army versus shooty army scenario, this mostly evens out unless one side is especially good at ignoring cover. In a melee army vs shooty army scenario, this makes melee armies slightly more likely to cross the table in one piece and actually get to contribute. Which I consider to be mostly positive (except in the cases of underpriced, overpowered units, but that's another topic entirely).

This also does interesting things to the survivability of some units and the usefulness of AP on ranged weapons. I assume in this scewnario that "cover saves" aren't a thing and are instead entirely replaced by to-hit modifiers of either -1 for light cover (anything less protective than a bunker) and -2 (bunkers and not much else). So a devastator equipped with the humble heavy bolter would now hit slightly less often, but he'd also completely ignore the save of a fire warrior or dire avenger or other feq standing in ruins. He's hitting 25% less often than before, but the wounds that land are resulting in kills %50 as often.

So you end up with a situation where melee units crossing the table is slightly more feasible, mediocre AP on ranged weapons suddenly matters (no more 6+ armor save orks getting 4+ cover saves), and marines who normally receive very limited benefit for being in cover now benefit from being in cover.

It's certainly a change. It shakes up the relative power level of quite a few things, but I'm not sure the changes are necessarily bad.

Other changes I might like to see in such a system:
*Price adjustments for ALL THE THINGS as appropriate.
*Shrouded goes away (replace it with stealth on all units that have shrouded)
*Stealth becomes "this model is considered to be in light cover when out in the open. When in light terrain, the model is considered to be in heavy terrain."
*Ignores Cover now ignores the penalty to-hit.

EDIT: The trick, I feel, when discussing cover as a to-hit modifier is to simply limit modifiers to -1 and -2. A -4 on all to-hit rolls because you have shrouded in ruins pretty much breaks the game. A marine being slightly harder to hit when slogging through terrain presents interesting decisions.

In the case of my Krieg army, this would essentially give invisibility to my opponent, as we play in very terrain heavy boards.

I personally dont care for the assault phase, so having about half my army (assuming blasts and barrages ignore the penalty) do little to no damage in the only phase that matters to me is kinda gakky.

@Wyldhunt.
Every other war game I play (apart from 40k,)uses proportional intuitive rules to cove to hit at range , and armour saves.(And everything else for that matter)

And this make these games more tactically diverse as a result.

Modifiers are fine if used in a limited way directly with a D6 roll.(WHFB, K.O.W. F.O.W etc.)

However, with 40ks diverse range of units, perhaps a comparison of opposed values (like S vs T to wound) ,might be a better system?

EG compare a new Armour value to a new Armour Piercing value on the table to determine the save roll the model gets.(This could cover all units.)

And we could compare the attackers BS to the targets new stat to represent its 'size/steath' value to determine the basic chance to hit.

This way all combat resolution is direct comparison of opposed values in a table.(Like to hit in CC and to wound.)

Light cover could adds 1 to the target size/stealth stat.Heavy cover could add 2 to this new stat perhaps.

The AP system is based on a false assumption which is provably untrue and counter ituitive.And this is one of the core sources of a lot of 40ks current issues..

There is no reason for modifiers and cover saves to not coexist. I have seen perceptive posters describe it. Swamp grass causes a modifier, but a barricade inside dense forest or pipework could give both a modifier and a cover save.

 CrownAxe wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Make it really hard for big stuff to get cover. Or just say big stuff can never have cover.

I didn't realize

Necron Wraith
Decurion Necrons
Plague Marines
Tzeentch Daemons stacking invul buffs
Artillery like the Thudd Gun
TH/SS Termies (not good but they are durable)
Grimoire of True Names on any daemon unit
Azreal buffed Infantry blobs
Plague Zombies
Thunder Wolves

Were all considered "Big Stuff" so should have troulbe getting cover saves

Those things are "Big Stuff." Tomb Wraiths are Very Bulky, which makes them in the rules bigger than normal infantry and than terminators. Terminators are Bulky, also making them bigger than normal infantry. If you are just regular infantry, you should have a greater benefit from cover than do the bigger types of model, and if you are bulky you should get more benefit than very bulky. Same for non-tank vehicles vs tank vehicles vs superheavies and monstrous creatures vs gargantuan creatures.

 CrownAxe wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
We were just thinking of different units. Most of those units need a price increase.

Yes those are some undercosted units.

But you can't balance for stacking cover saves with point cost

Actually, yes, you can. You can balance virtually anything with the right point cost. Magnus is a good recent example. Nearly immortal due to overlapping defense of flying/toughness/saves, silly stat line, tons of special rules, lots of psychic output, and yet he's only mediocre outside of lists built around combo-ing with him.

pelicaniforce wrote:There is no reason for modifiers and cover saves to not coexist. I have seen perceptive posters describe it. Swamp grass causes a modifier, but a barricade inside dense forest or pipework could give both a modifier and a cover save.

 CrownAxe wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Make it really hard for big stuff to get cover. Or just say big stuff can never have cover.

I didn't realize

Necron Wraith
Decurion Necrons
Plague Marines
Tzeentch Daemons stacking invul buffs
Artillery like the Thudd Gun
TH/SS Termies (not good but they are durable)
Grimoire of True Names on any daemon unit
Azreal buffed Infantry blobs
Plague Zombies
Thunder Wolves

Were all considered "Big Stuff" so should have troulbe getting cover saves

Those things are "Big Stuff." Tomb Wraiths are Very Bulky, which makes them in the rules bigger than normal infantry and than terminators. Terminators are Bulky, also making them bigger than normal infantry. If you are just regular infantry, you should have a greater benefit from cover than do the bigger types of model, and if you are bulky you should get more benefit than very bulky. Same for non-tank vehicles vs tank vehicles vs superheavies and monstrous creatures vs gargantuan creatures.

Plenty of the units I listed ARE REGULAR INFANTRY

niv-mizzet wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
We were just thinking of different units. Most of those units need a price increase.

Yes those are some undercosted units.

But you can't balance for stacking cover saves with point cost

Actually, yes, you can. You can balance virtually anything with the right point cost. Magnus is a good recent example. Nearly immortal due to overlapping defense of flying/toughness/saves, silly stat line, tons of special rules, lots of psychic output, and yet he's only mediocre outside of lists built around combo-ing with him.

That's not balanced though. If he's mediocre when not abusing synergy and combos then henot a balanced unit, its just from being underpowered instead of overpowered

Lanrak wrote:
@Wyldhunt.
Every other war game I play (apart from 40k,)uses proportional intuitive rules to cove to hit at range , and armour saves.(And everything else for that matter)

And this make these games more tactically diverse as a result.

Modifiers are fine if used in a limited way directly with a D6 roll.(WHFB, K.O.W. F.O.W etc.)

However, with 40ks diverse range of units, perhaps a comparison of opposed values (like S vs T to wound) ,might be a better system?

EG compare a new Armour value to a new Armour Piercing value on the table to determine the save roll the model gets.(This could cover all units.)

And we could compare the attackers BS to the targets new stat to represent its 'size/steath' value to determine the basic chance to hit.

This way all combat resolution is direct comparison of opposed values in a table.(Like to hit in CC and to wound.)

Light cover could adds 1 to the target size/stealth stat.Heavy cover could add 2 to this new stat perhaps.

The AP system is based on a false assumption which is provably untrue and counter ituitive.And this is one of the core sources of a lot of 40ks current issues..

Part of me really likes the idea of a BS VS "Evasion" chart. The only concerns I would have about such a thing are that people around here already seem to struggle to remember the to-wound and WS charts. Also, making it an opposed roll and also adding cover modifiers to the to-hit roll potentially makes this idea hard to balance. My eldar, being lithe and superhumanly quick, would probably be harder to hit than your average bear. Let's assume guardsmen hit them on 5s instead of 4s in this system. Now if my eldar are in even light cover (a -1 to to-hit rolls), I'm effectively invisible against guardsmen when standing in some trees.

Unless you're suggesting that cover not be a direct penalty to the to-hit roll and instead be a modifier to my evasion stat? So light cover might bump me from evasion 4 to evasion 5, and that may or may not cause guardsmen to hit me on 6s depending on what the chart looked like. If that's the case, I could see potential issues with units on the cusp of being hard to hit benefitting greatly from light cover while other units only really benefit from relatively rare "heavy cover." I could also see a gradiated chart like that being tough for people to wrap their heads around if they're already struggling with something like the WS chart.

I like the concept though. I'd totally try it out. I feel like this might really shine in a small-scale game like Heralds of Ruin or Necromunda. One thing to note is that I wouldn't necessarily tie "evasion" to model size. While it certainly makes sense for a carnifex to be able to hit than a guardsman, it doesn't necessarily make sense for him to be as easy to hit as, say, a superhumanly-fast keeper of secrets.

@ Wyldhunt.
The move to using opposed values on a chart for all three stages of resolution, to hit, to save , to damage.
Would be most effective in a rewrite of the rules for 40k. As a single new expanded chart chart could cover all the interaction for all units , at each of the three stages.

And modifiers would be applied to the models stat line.EG light cover adds +1 to the models Evasion stat.
(Applying them directly to the dice result is too restrictive with a D6.And 40k players like rolling hand fulls of D6, rather than a single larger dice for units In my experience.)

When I wrote 'size/stealth' stat I meant that the models size and ability to hide would be taken into consideration for the new 'Evasion' stat.
So the umpteen things that need special rules to cover the to hit chance ATM could be covered with the new stat.(Invisibility, holo field chameleon skin, camo cloaks demonic instability , jink etc etc.)

My basic point is most other games do not have the massive range of units and model types that 40k has.And so these other game can use the 'well proven game mechanics and resolution methods' developed over the last 30 years no problem.

These games can easily simplify out a lot of the resolution because of this.

A simple example is target type.

In Ancient battles (WHFB) practically every unit is a massed rank block of infantry or cavalry.As these targets are HUGE in real terms.(Infantry regiments represent 500 to 2000 actual foot soldiers, and cavalry squarons represent 100 to 600 cavalry.)
Its just the skill of the shooter that is important .

-1 to hit small targets, and -1 to hit at long range , are often enough to make the variation the rules needs in terms of game play variance.

In most modern war games there is a clearly defined difference between a soft target, (Infantry and non armoured vehicles.) And heavily armoured vehicles like APCs and Tanks.

So a simple binary system for Anti infantry and Anti tank weapons resolution works fine.Most infantry is a squad of similar sized human targets, and most vehicles are of similar size too.

40k has no clear definition between soft targets and armoured targets,it is a slow progressive transition.
And 40k has the widest amount of target sizes and abilities of any game I can think of.So not including a stat for this seems a massive oversight.
(And probably why 40k rules have suffered so much bloat over the years. )

 niv-mizzet wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
We were just thinking of different units. Most of those units need a price increase.

Yes those are some undercosted units.

But you can't balance for stacking cover saves with point cost

Actually, yes, you can. You can balance virtually anything with the right point cost. Magnus is a good recent example. Nearly immortal due to overlapping defense of flying/toughness/saves, silly stat line, tons of special rules, lots of psychic output, and yet he's only mediocre outside of lists built around combo-ing with him.

Magnus isn't paying enough for being an FMC, still.

I know this is a slight tangent to the original topic.

But just because something has an accurate* points cost does not mean it is not game breaking.
(*In this instance I mean a provable level of comparative cost, that the majority agree with.)

For example , If I design a cool looking unit that can not be damaged by standard units, and the only unit that can damage it is restricted, and some armies might not take it.
That is game breaking.
Accurate comparative costing at the level of interaction is the starting point for game balance, it is not the complete process.(GW plc lack of play testing is glaringly obvious over he last 2 editions.).

Getting back to how bad 40ks AP system is..
What is a 4+ save worth?
Against an army with mainly AP 5 and AP6 weapons its very useful.
Against an army with lots of AP 3 weapons it is worthless.

Considering all the options for proportional armour save resolution, I can not believe they picked this one.
I know the devs were told to get rid of modifiers.(Becasue GW plc target demographic can not do simple maths apparently. )

So we could have used the dice value directly for Armor save modifier.
EG a weapon with AP 6 ignores save roll dice that roll a 6
AP 5 weapons ignore save roll dice that roll 5 and 6.
This gives the same results as ASM but does not use a separate list of modifiers, just removing specific dice rolls.

Using the save roll as a modifier to the models armour value.
All models get an armour value.
All weapons get a AP value.
When a weapon hits a model roll a D6 and add its armour value.
If the total of armour value and dice roll is greater thean the weapon AP value the model has made its save.
This could be used for all models and weapons in the game.

Or just use the opposed values in a (re vamped) table as previously discussed.

All of these options would make armour saves proportional and allow other proportional intuitive rules to be used.

Lanrak wrote:

Getting back to how bad 40ks AP system is..
What is a 4+ save worth?
Against an army with mainly AP 5 and AP6 weapons its very useful.

So? Why is this so bad?

Also you've yet to actually explain why a "proportional" save system is so much better

@CrownAxe.
Perhaps if you expanded the quote to contain the next line.

''Getting back to how bad 40ks AP system is..
What is a 4+ save worth?
Against an army with mainly AP 5 and AP6 weapons its very useful.
Against an army with lots of AP 3 weapons it is worthless. ''

This means that it makes it impossible to accurately define points as that relative value depends on the opposing force composition.Along with lots of all or nothing special rules that have been thrown on top of a badly developed system to try to hide its flaws.

However . I will try to explain the main issues from the inception though execution to final effects of the AP system..(Excuse me if I miss some there are quite a few. )

1) Concept.
'It either beats the armour or it does not'.
This is a MASSIVE abstraction of how weapon and armour interaction works.Lets apply this to other aspects of the game and see what happens.

A model moves or it does not.
Everything is stationary or moves exactly 6"

Everything hits or it does not.
4+ to hit for everything.

Everything saves or it does not.
4+ save for everything.

Does this seem like its overly restrictive and limiting?Well that is because it is compared to alternative proportional systems that are just as simple!

ALL armour has an effect on weapon hits.Sometimes the potential damage is not reduced enough to protect the target behind.
As my favorite Mekboys explains how armour works to the War boss.''Hittiness minus protectiness equals hurtiness.''

2)Execution
So as the concept is 'false' lets see what this does to the proportional saves when it is applied.
We start with a range of armour saves that are proportionally better by the same amount.2+3+4+5+6+(1/6 or 16.6667)
There is nothing wrong with D6 armour saves they have been used for years and work well in most games.

a)Issues of corrupting proportional saves.
However, when you apply the AP concept over the top.It make the proportional saves range on in game effect massively varied in a very steep efficiency curve.
6+ saves become practically worthless, and 2+ saves are over 80% more effective than 3+ saves ,(The last time any one tried to work out the frequency of AP weapons that is.)

This pushes players into thinking about removing the opponents save completely. Because 3+ saves are very common in most games,( due to GW obsession with SM).The amount of increase in more effective AP weapons over the years means much fewer saves get taken!

b)Fiddle factors to over correct and complicate..
As this increase in AP effectiveness has lead to higher efficiency in shooting.(Other factors of poor game development contribute to this as well.)Lots of special rules have been used to try to improve the units staying power.(Inv saves and ignoring morale effects.etc)

3)Effects on game play.
1)Game balance.
The resulting use of 'false binary choice' limits the effects models can have on other models and limits the amount of tactical interaction in the game.(Along with other serious flaws with the game turn and poor resolution method choices.)
Also the need to correct the lack of natural interaction and counter intuitive results has lead to the inclusion of an out of control list of special rules .

Summary.
The AP system has contributed to the limiting of tactical game play, and making the rules over complicated as a result.

However, all other systems I am aware of simplify this weapon and armour interaction, without abstracting the resolution or the results to such a degree.
(Most use the dice roll to show the variables, with the amour value and weapon strength compared in some way.)

Lanrak wrote:
@CrownAxe.
Perhaps if you expanded the quote to contain the next line.

''Getting back to how bad 40ks AP system is..
What is a 4+ save worth?
Against an army with mainly AP 5 and AP6 weapons its very useful.
Against an army with lots of AP 3 weapons it is worthless. ''

This means that it makes it impossible to accurately define points as that relative value depends on the opposing force composition.Along with lots of all or nothing special rules that have been thrown on top of a badly developed system to try to hide its flaws.

How is this different from save modifiers? That 4+ is the same worth in you system as it is the AP system. Against an army with weapons with little to no save modifiers its very useful. And against an army with lots of high modifiers the save is worthless. The relative value depends on the opposing force FOR EVERYTHING, this is not unique to the AP system and would still be a flaw for the save modifier system.

1) Concept.
'It either beats the armour or it does not'.
This is a MASSIVE abstraction of how weapon and armour interaction works.Lets apply this to other aspects of the game and see what happens.

A model moves or it does not.
Everything is stationary or moves exactly 6"

Everything hits or it does not.
4+ to hit for everything.

Everything saves or it does not.
4+ save for everything.

Does this seem like its overly restrictive and limiting?Well that is because it is compared to alternative proportional systems that are just as simple!

ALL armour has an effect on weapon hits.Sometimes the potential damage is not reduced enough to protect the target behind.

Abstract gameplay is not inherently a problem. That is your subjective opinion. The most successful games such as Chess and Poker and completely abstract. Making abstract rules is not inherently a detriment

As for you comparison to other aspects of the game, this is a strawman argument. These aspects are all independent of each other and these aspects aren't a related design to the AP system. This argument does not have anything to do with proving why the AP system would be bad.

2)Execution
So as the concept is 'false' lets see what this does to the proportional saves when it is applied.
We start with a range of armour saves that are proportionally better by the same amount.2+3+4+5+6+(1/6 or 16.6667)
There is nothing wrong with D6 armour saves they have been used for years and work well in most games.

Except that not how you analyze the value of the range of saves. You don't simply add 1/6 every time. You are suppose to compare the chance of failure for saves.

So a 6+ save has a 83.3% failure rate (a 16.7% difference from 100% failure rate)
5+ has the 66.6% failure rate (a 20% difference of failure from a 6+)
4+ has a 50% failure rate (a 25% difference from 5+)
3+ has a 33.3% failure rate (a 33.3% difference from 4+
and 2+ as a 16.7% failure rate (a 50% difference from 3+)

This shows that the difference between saves is not linear. Its skewed. They don't get proportionally better by the same amount. This is also why simple modifiers are so terrible because they have such huge differences in values at different ends of the save. A -1 to a 2+ save is a 100% increase in the failure rate (16.67% to 33.3%) but that same -1 to a 6+ save is only a 20% increase to the failure rate.

a)Issues of corrupting proportional saves.
However, when you apply the AP concept over the top.It make the proportional saves range on in game effect massively varied in a very steep efficiency curve.
6+ saves become practically worthless, and 2+ saves are over 80% more effective than 3+ saves ,(The last time any one tried to work out the frequency of AP weapons that is.)

This pushes players into thinking about removing the opponents save completely. Because 3+ saves are very common in most games,( due to GW obsession with SM).The amount of increase in more effective AP weapons over the years means much fewer saves get taken!

Do you have any actual proof of this? Because this is very overgeneralized and does hold to closer examination. For instance against eldar I get to make lots of low 4+ and 5+ armor saves because their most effect guns are ap6 scatter lasers and ap6 rending death spinners. The most important aspect of a weapon is its damage to point ratio and the "all or nothing AP" is not the deciding factor on which guns are better.

b)Fiddle factors to over correct and complicate..
As this increase in AP effectiveness has lead to higher efficiency in shooting.(Other factors of poor game development contribute to this as well.)Lots of special rules have been used to try to improve the units staying power.(Inv saves and ignoring morale effects.etc)

A baseless assumption yet again.

3)Effects on game play
1)Game balance.
The resulting use of 'false binary choice' limits the effects models can have on other models and limits the amount of tactical interaction in the game.(Along with other serious flaws with the game turn and poor resolution method choices.)
Also the need to correct the lack of natural interaction and counter intuitive results has lead to the inclusion of an out of control list of special rules .

Again its another baseless assumption.

Seriously most of your "supporting claims" are baseless and have no proof or have faulty leaps in logic or understanding in how the saves actually work.

@Crown Axe.
The difference between I save 50% of the time against a whole range of weapons, then i get no save at all vs a whole other range of weapons.
Is counter intuitive to the way actual weapon and armour interacts.

And does not allow the effects of weapons that are slighty better to be taken into account.I am not suggesting that modifiers is the holy grail of proportional resolution.

But rule sets that use simple resolution systems that give proportional results tend to be less complicated, than rule set that dont.

EG using simple ASM.
If a bolt gun armour piercing potential modifies all armour saves by 1.
So
2+ save becomes a 3+ save.
3+ save becomes a 4+ save
4+save necomes a 5+ save
5+ save becomes a 6+ save
6+ save becomes a - save.

Then ALL armour is effected by the same amount by a bolt gun.(Weapon and armour interaction is proportional and intuitive.)
(The ASM method could run from 0 to maybe 4?So a 2+ save is modified to a 6+ save.)

Abstract game play is not a problem.
However in a war game the interaction is much more complex.So abstraction of the resolution is fine, if it does not abstract the results to the point the game play is counter intuitive.
[i]
If you believe 40k is just an abstract game where you role dice and look up special rules for fun.Then that is what it is currently.

However, some people buy into 40k expecting a war game based on the background narrative and the types of units i the game.

It is possible to factor out variables if they do not apply in a particular game play.But removing IMPORTANT variable in a war game leads to a compromised rule set.(Like 40k has been compromised.)

The difference between each improvement in save values is 1/6.Here are the chances of success in fractions to avoid the odd % decimal places...
1/6 chance of success,
2/6 chances of success.
3/6 chances of success
4/6 chances of success.
5/6 chances of success.

Modifiers effects all saves by reducing them by the same amount.

If an army has access to very few AP 2 or AP 3 weapons, or they simply do not take them. Then they have a hard time against MEQ armies, unless they have very high rates of fire.This is another side effect of the poor balance inflicted by the AP system.

Compared to 2nd ed 40k (which is far from perfect.)3rd edition onward tried to be a simple rule set with simple game play.

7th edition has 4 times as many special rules as any other war game I am aware of.
And about 5 times as many pages of rules as the most complex and detailed simulation type war games I am aware of .

3+ saves are very common in actual games played.As GW plc stated themselves that Space Marine sales make up half of their entire revenue from ALL sales.
Maybe in isolated cases where a group of players ignore the SM bias of GW plc .A non MEQ meta can thrive?

Compare a rule set written specifically for large battle game in the 40k universe.(Epic Armageddon.)To 40k 7th ed if you are not sure about how over complicated the 40k rules are.(I think the fan supported rules are still under NET Epic on the interwebs.)

If you think 40k has got it right, and all the other rule set have got it wrong.
Could you please give me examples why 40k is comparatively better?(In terms of clarity brevity and intuitive results.)

Don't forget Eldar are basically a 3+ army, as is a huge chunk of Necrons.