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.

 _SeeD_ wrote:
Killing things with AP0 is abysmally bad. You can't kill anything except really weak units.
I run 10 terminators and I will often advance instead of firing at something I know I'll only do like 5 or less wounds to.

Are you annoyed about lasguns being AP0?

Where does shotguns and lasguns fall on this hiarchy of AP? A shotgun is ap0. A chainsword is Ap1. Are you telling me a chainsword is more penetrating then a shotgun blast? I might be genually wrong.

Also, are lasguns just flashlights, or are they actually laser shots? Perhaps lasguns are ap0 because ap0 is actually quite penetrating (like a bolter shell) it just does not reach the heights of Ap1.

I would rather play a well balanced game then having model get priced up because troop choise happen to be designed in the 90s and they kept the same gun for practical reasons.

Make a lasgun have Ap3 and price them accordingly. 11 points for a guard. 2 point up from tempetus scion. Tempestust scion have better lasguns so they should be perhaps AP4 and 13 points. Oh what a world to wear power armour in. Perhaps power armour should be 3+5++? To represent how though they are. Terminator armour could be 2+ 4++. Stormshields gives +1 to both armour and invunerable save of they could be useless, as everything has high AP. So a terminator with shield is 1+ 3++, witch would equilise a 3 wound marine today although move 5 instead of 6. These domino brick changes would of course be spaced out over a couple of years, each a response to the meta.

I kind of like my game be a game. Realismen are for people who joins a real war and come home with pts. (Although thank you for your hard work of you are a veteran, and you defended a cause that benefitted my country.)

 Niiai wrote:
Where does shotguns and lasguns fall on this hiarchy of AP? A shotgun is ap0. A chainsword is Ap1. Are you telling me a chainsword is more penetrating then a shotgun blast? I might be genually wrong.

Chainswords are probably more penetrating than a shotgun blast. The shotgun blast probably has more force behind it (though that's iffy if a space marine is wielding the chainsword), but those projectiles probably aren't especially good at piercing armor and probably bounce off of sufficiently sturdy plates. The chainsword is literally a mechanical saw that you keep pressed against the target while it does its job. Even if the diamond-tipped teeth of the saw don't have much initial success against the armor you press them against, they're theoretically knicking away at all but the hardest of materials little by little, clearing any chipped away material with the sawing motion, and then continuing to do more of the same to the next layer of armor until they're going through flesh.
Which still isn't that good of armor-penetration by 40k standards, but it does seem like it's probably better at the job than shotgun shot. There's a cool thread about chainswords over in the Background section right now.

Also, are lasguns just flashlights, or are they actually laser shots? Perhaps lasguns are ap0 because ap0 is actually quite penetrating (like a bolter shell) it just does not reach the heights of Ap1.

Their strength definitely seems to vary a lot from author to author, but I get the impression that they're roughly comparable to your average Star Wars blaster. They seem to instantly cook any unarmored flesh they hit (think severe burns, eyeballs popped open and steaming, etc.) making them plenty powerful and gruesome against things like cultists. However, that sort of damage seems to be largely dependent on the trauma caused to the meat. An ork is probably unbothered enough by pain and blood loss to shrug the first few hits off, and a sister of battle's power armor probably dissipates enough of the heat and concussive force of the las bolt to take most of the harm out of it. Which seems pretty well-represented by S3 AP0, I think.

But yes. I think you've nailed it. A bolter is certainly impressive. It's just not necessarily good enough at armor piercing specifically to need an AP boost. (But again, I think making at least Astartes bolters AP-1 and then ditching doctrines is a reasonable way to go.)

Back in the day, Lasguns and Close Combat Weapons (aka chainswords) were both AP - while Bolters were AP 5 (with means you didn't get a save if you had a 5+ or 6+ armor Save). Now all three are AP 0, unless you are an Astartes when your Chainswords AP -1 (the old AP 4) and you have a better AP at certain points of the game with certain weapons.

So theoretically, Bolters have a higher AP than a Lasgun, but the bottom of the scale was flattened.

AP on chainswords is an abstraction, not a realistic feature. Its only purpose is to buff melee. Since you can shoot from distance typically more times than melee attacks shooting needs to be less powerful than melee. GW wanted to balance shooting and melee.

To fight you need to be into engagement range and to success a charge roll. Sometimes you even have to take the blows from the enemy before fighting, in your turn. Then to hit and wound. To shoot you just need to hit and wound. That's why chainswords and their equivalents have AP-1, it's the reward for managing to get into fight.

 alextroy wrote:
Back in the day, Lasguns and Close Combat Weapons (aka chainswords) were both AP - while Bolters were AP 5 (with means you didn't get a save if you had a 5+ or 6+ armor Save). Now all three are AP 0, unless you are an Astartes when your Chainswords AP -1 (the old AP 4) and you have a better AP at certain points of the game with certain weapons.

So theoretically, Bolters have a higher AP than a Lasgun, but the bottom of the scale was flattened.

If you want to go back back in the day, in 2nd ed they looked like this:

Boltgun ap-1
Lasgun ap-1
Autogun ap0
Chainsword ap-1
Hotshot lasgun ap-1
Heavy bolter ap-2
Meltagun ap-4
Lascannon ap-6
Shotgun ap0
Autocannon ap-3
Assault cannon ap-3
Stubber ap-1
Laspistol ap0
Power fist ap-5


Shuriken catapult ap-2
Shuriken Cannon ap-3


The penetrative power is relative. A bolter was considered more penetrative than an auto round but equal to a lasgun and interior to a catapult.

After playing 2 editions now with this new AP system, i greatly miss the old AP system now.

Current rending AP system imo has created more problems and balance issues then it solved.

 Blackie wrote:
Bolters at AP-1 would be OP assuming units that carry those keep the same points cost. But then they'd be overpriced, to the point that no one would bring them anyway .

Jumping from AP0 and AP-1 is a big deal, not easy to balance, especially on weapons that can be spammed. Flat AP0 and AP-1 for 1-2 for SM seems very appropriate to me.

And to be honest considering how many units in the game are equipped with bolters I'd argue that the weapon is the probably the most common one in the entire 40k universe.

A rubic marine is 21 points for an AP-2 bolter. That's only 3 points more than a tactical marine.

More AP on the field only causes more problems

Jarms48 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Bolters at AP-1 would be OP assuming units that carry those keep the same points cost. But then they'd be overpriced, to the point that no one would bring them anyway .

Jumping from AP0 and AP-1 is a big deal, not easy to balance, especially on weapons that can be spammed. Flat AP0 and AP-1 for 1-2 for SM seems very appropriate to me.

And to be honest considering how many units in the game are equipped with bolters I'd argue that the weapon is the probably the most common one in the entire 40k universe.

A rubic marine is 21 points for an AP-2 bolter. That's only 3 points more than a tactical marine.

True, but rubric marines don't have the same layers of rules and all the shenanigans SM have. The point of AP0 on SM bolters is to differentiate them from intercessors. If both had AP-1 they'd be the same unit basically. AP0 works fine for sisters, and even standard marines don't really need to be a bit more killy against infantries. Gamewise there's really no need for boosting AP on bolters. Not to mention that in the turns that matter the most, and the actual turns in which bolters will likely be in range, regular SM bolters already do have AP-1 thanks to doctrines. I'd even argue for removing doctrines completely without compensating in any way instead of flat out buffing bolters.

I mean, bolter shells don’t penetrate things right, they stick in and explode before they go through. There you go, I solved the problem.
If you want to tack on ap to stuff that needs it, shootas, big shootas, and splinter weapons could all legitimately use some ap.

Jarms48 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Bolters at AP-1 would be OP assuming units that carry those keep the same points cost. But then they'd be overpriced, to the point that no one would bring them anyway .

Jumping from AP0 and AP-1 is a big deal, not easy to balance, especially on weapons that can be spammed. Flat AP0 and AP-1 for 1-2 for SM seems very appropriate to me.

And to be honest considering how many units in the game are equipped with bolters I'd argue that the weapon is the probably the most common one in the entire 40k universe.

A rubic marine is 21 points for an AP-2 bolter. That's only 3 points more than a tactical marine.

A Rubric Marine is more than a Space Marine with an AP -2 Bolter. They also have All Is Dust, Arcane Automata, a 5+ Invulnerable Save, and a Psycher in their unit.

So removing Doctrines and giving Astartes Bolters AP -1 doesn't suddenly make Rubrics not worth 3 points more than a Marine.

The old AP system was better. That being said a bolter rocket/bullet has an armor piercing tip. Or you can load a magazine up with dedicated AP rounds which have a hardened penetrator which would do even better. You could possibly pay extra points for them or pay CP for a strategy called “Saboted armor piercing ammo” which uses adamantium or tungsten penetrators to bring down hardened targets. Give it a -2 AP.

I've thought Bolters should have AP-1 for a long time. The argument isn't about lore, it's about making Tacticals / CSMs worth taking on the tabletop. There's a problem with the fact they seem like a troop tax in Loyalist / Traitor armies and that their real value often comes down to ObSec.

At the same time, I understand the mechanics of the game and the complexity of setting points across a range of armies. The idea that an explosive Bolt Shell would have more impact than a beam that splits atoms is absurd. AP -1 can't happen specifically because the game can't be balanced otherwise, the power creep would be impossible to manage.

In general, the points system in 40k fosters a bad sense of proportion. Achieving a sense of relative value for each unit competes with making each one useful and fluffy. It's not possible to always deliver both in a skirmish game, which is why some units seem OP while others seem not worth taking. GW does it's best (power levels were an attempt to decouple from points) but this doesn't seem to be an achievable task.

There's times I wish GW would get rid of points and rebuild the game from the ground up in a way that more substantially reflects the Lore. Bolters would be AP -1, Gauss Flayers could be AP -3, etc, but these benefits would not impact the list. Embrace the factional imbalances and focus on missions with criteria specific to each faction. Like, your Space Marines are inferior to the mighty Necrons, but the mission is to destroy a power node and escape without taking too much damage. The Necrons are much tougher and better equipped, the Space Marine player's opportunity lies in slowing them down enough to achieve the objective.

But that doesn't seem possible in a skirmish game where players come to the table with equally "balanced" armies. Balance just means each side is handicapped in a manner that deviates from the lore, and points are an abstraction meant to make conflicts more fair for one side or the other.

Another way of putting it: points make each side suck in equal measure.

Well if you want evolution over time, as best I remember it...
Marine vs Guardsman
1st ed Marine, T3, Sv4+ / Bolter 0-12" +1 to hit, S4, AV-1 - Guard T3 Sv6+ / Las 0-12" +1 to hit, S3, AV-1

2nd ed (was it part way through or end of 1st ed?) Then marines went up to T4, SV3+
Then marines get 2 shots if stationary. Was that at half range?

Then 3rd rolled in and I ducked out, but I think that is where the armour system changed and the marine bolter became 2 shots at half range.

Then I think all the weapons, marines or otherwise changed to rapid fire at half range. Marines now get other bonuses. Weapons lose minus armour saves in new system and when it changes back still don't have them.

So now
Marine, T4, W2, Sv3+ / Bolter rapid fire, S4. Then bunch of special rules about stationary fire, chapters, turn of the game etc.
Guard T3 Sv5+ / Las rapid fire, S3, with orders to double shots, re-roll 1's etc.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
I mean, bolter shells don’t penetrate things right, they stick in and explode before they go through. There you go, I solved the problem.
If you want to tack on ap to stuff that needs it, shootas, big shootas, and splinter weapons could all legitimately use some ap.

That's actually the opposite of how bolter shells 'work.' They're 'mass-reactive'- they penetrate armor and THEN explode afterwards.

Voss wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
I mean, bolter shells don’t penetrate things right, they stick in and explode before they go through. There you go, I solved the problem.
If you want to tack on ap to stuff that needs it, shootas, big shootas, and splinter weapons could all legitimately use some ap.

That's actually the opposite of how bolter shells 'work.' They're 'mass-reactive'- they penetrate armor and THEN explode afterwards.

I know, I was just channeling my pure rules lawyering to say that they don’t technically go through persay, they go in half way, then detonate. Perfect for delivering their payload, but technically not piercing the target.

Obviously any kind of projectile is going to penetrate something. The question is how to properly determine what weapons are causing what kind of penetration. It’s not the greatest system we have to work with. An auto gun for example would likely do nothing to power armor but in the current rules there’s a decent possibility it will kill a space marine. Which is pure BS. It can’t even penetrate the armor. You’re talking an extremely minute possibility.

A bolter would 100% defeat a flak vest and explode your chest and the fragments would injure other troopers nearby. It’s a 20mm high explosive

warpedpig wrote:
Obviously any kind of projectile is going to penetrate something. The question is how to properly determine what weapons are causing what kind of penetration. It’s not the greatest system we have to work with. An auto gun for example would likely do nothing to power armor but in the current rules there’s a decent possibility it will kill a space marine. Which is pure BS. It can’t even penetrate the armor. You’re talking an extremely minute possibility.

Something something abstraction. In practical terms, a single autogun is not a reliable way to kill a marine, but the marine also isn't immune to the autogun. Every now and then, that lucky shot will go through an eye lense and bounce around inside a marine's cranium, killing him in one shot, but the chances are very low. Alternatively, a squad of autoguns is chipping away at the power armor, slowly exposing more weak spots or inflicting minor injuries on weak points until the marine finally succumbs to the blood loss, etc. It's probably not that two specific bullets scored a killing blow; it's that that a thousand bullets managed to make him take a short healing nap.

20 cultists with autoguns land 20 hits = 7.333 ~ wounds. The marine saves 2/3rds of those wounds for about 2.4333~ unsaved wounds. Or in other words, 20 cultists firing on full auto kills about 1 marine. You can't make autoguns much less effective than that without making marines essentially immune to them.

A bolter would 100% defeat a flak vest and explode your chest and the fragments would injure other troopers nearby. It’s a 20mm high explosive

Seems pretty well-represented by AP-1 bolters, right? Guardsmen get almost no armor save against them, but hunkering down in cover provides some meaningful protection.

warpedpig wrote:
Obviously any kind of projectile is going to penetrate something. The question is how to properly determine what weapons are causing what kind of penetration. It’s not the greatest system we have to work with. An auto gun for example would likely do nothing to power armor but in the current rules there’s a decent possibility it will kill a space marine. Which is pure BS. It can’t even penetrate the armor. You’re talking an extremely minute possibility.

A bolter would 100% defeat a flak vest and explode your chest and the fragments would injure other troopers nearby. It’s a 20mm high explosive

There were some optional rules I think in WD at end of 1st ed I think for alternative bolter fire modes. One was using the explosions for an area effect. Made the gun S3, Save mod none, 1/2" blast.

I think too many basic weapons are getting AP-1.
You can justify it for just about every weapon.
It's also all but confirmed that Eldar shuriken weapons are all getting AP-1. I'd like to see that mean S3 on catapults, but that isn't likely.

For bolters, I'd much rather see D2 on 6s to wound representing the exploding round. That would also scale well for all bolter type weapons.

But if every factions' basic weapon is AP-1, why bother giving models good armour? Marines effectively now have 4+ armour or worse 90% of the time.

-

The problem is that just a lot of basic weapons haven’t changed for a while so everything outstrips them. There’s also the whole thing where basic infantry is dissapearing from the battlefield so your basic weaponry just has less targets. Going from older editions, a boy has gone from 6 to 9 points, the shoota has essentially no upgrade, dakka is really just never comes into effect with them. A space marine has gone from 14 to 18 points for a firstborn, and they’ve doubled in durability against them, and those are a weak unit.

In a world of hordes of elites and the like, a basic gun of a faction isn’t going to do anything unless it starts being crazy.

I blame all this on infantry squad level wargear being removed in lieu of super specialist units

As far as I'm concerned, the 2nd ed weapon profiles are what all should be compared to.

In that, lasguns and boltguns had identical armour penetration - high energy burning through the target vs heavy fast projectile penetration.

autoguns had no modifier.


shurikens had better penetration.

Whatever way you go, so long as those relative values are maintained it doesn't matter.

 Hellebore wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, the 2nd ed weapon profiles are what all should be compared to.

In that, lasguns and boltguns had identical armour penetration - high energy burning through the target vs heavy fast projectile penetration.

autoguns had no modifier.


shurikens had better penetration.

Whatever way you go, so long as those relative values are maintained it doesn't matter.

What about the multiple armies/factions that didn't exist in 2nd?

 Blndmage wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, the 2nd ed weapon profiles are what all should be compared to.

In that, lasguns and boltguns had identical armour penetration - high energy burning through the target vs heavy fast projectile penetration.

autoguns had no modifier.


shurikens had better penetration.

Whatever way you go, so long as those relative values are maintained it doesn't matter.

What about the multiple armies/factions that didn't exist in 2nd?

The only army that didn't have weapon rules in 2nd is the tau.

Necron flayer weapons had their own statline in 2nd ed.


The point is that these values aren't in a vacuum, but relative to one another. The 3rd-7th paradigm completely threw out the book on 40k rules. 8th-9th has actually reverted to something closer to 2nd ed for weapons.

So if you take 2nd ed AP-1 as AP0 in 9th, then catapults being ap-1 makes sense - i'd be all for catapults being their 2nd ed equivalent and dropping the 6s rule, but that's unlikely.

It would depend where a marine was hit with a bolter obviously. And how battle damaged the armor was already.

 Hellebore wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, the 2nd ed weapon profiles are what all should be compared to.

In that, lasguns and boltguns had identical armour penetration - high energy burning through the target vs heavy fast projectile penetration.

autoguns had no modifier.


shurikens had better penetration.

Whatever way you go, so long as those relative values are maintained it doesn't matter.

Nah, RT! Then autoguns get range 32" and are a fun decision between them and las...

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, the 2nd ed weapon profiles are what all should be compared to.

In that, lasguns and boltguns had identical armour penetration - high energy burning through the target vs heavy fast projectile penetration.

autoguns had no modifier.


shurikens had better penetration.

Whatever way you go, so long as those relative values are maintained it doesn't matter.

Nah, RT! Then autoguns get range 32" and are a fun decision between them and las...

Yeah thats cool. Catapults were still ap-2

 Backspacehacker wrote:
After playing 2 editions now with this new AP system, i greatly miss the old AP system now.

Current rending AP system imo has created more problems and balance issues then it solved.

Calling what 7th and earlier had a 'system' is incredibly generous. They had a binary. Is this weapon at least AP3? If yes, AP is relevant. If no, AP is irrelevant.

People are arguing about bolters being AP0 vs AP-1 like they weren't ALWAYS AP0.

"Oh, but they ignored guardsman armor!" No, guardsman didn't have armor.

Because the corollary of that system was "Do you have at least a 3+ save? If yes you have a save. If no, you don't have a save." You could count on one hand the number of times in entire multi-day tournaments someone actually got to roll a 4+ armor save.

Calling what 8th and later editions have a system is incredibly generous. It’s just simple subtraction from your roll.

Or, put another way, simplicity of a system doesn’t stop it being a system. And 4+ was when saves usually started mattering, not 3+. Since most small arms fire was AP5, you doubled your resilience against it compared to a 5+ save.