PDA

View Full Version : Close Combat Weapon AP?



Somerandomidiot
25-03-2009, 22:30
I've been wondering, is that a particular reason why ranged weapons vary from AP1, AP2, AP3, AP4, AP5, AP6, AP-, and no AP, while close combat attacks are either AP2 (power weapons/monstrous creatures) or have no AP (or in a very few cases, AP1, like Lysander)? I find it hard to believe that the chainsword carried by a Khorne Berserker has the same armor penetration as whatever sad excuse for combat weapons Tau Fire Warriors have.

In Fantasy, this is made up for my the mechanic where strength reduces your armor save, but does anyone have any insight to why this is?

Necro Angelo
25-03-2009, 22:43
I think a lot of people would agree that its stupid; its just one of the things which makes the two games different. I guess its because (for the most part anyway) 40k is more about shooting so they never bothered to 'fine-tune' cc rules. sounds stupid becuase just adding modifiers a la fantasy does'nt sound too difficult but hell i dont know it could make all manner of differences in the mechanics of the game.

SimonL
25-03-2009, 22:49
I miss 2nd Ed :cries:. Back when chainswords did more damage than a fist...

kikkoman
25-03-2009, 22:56
40k is more about shooting so they never bothered to 'fine-tune' cc rules.

in 40k assault armies are king.
in Fantasy gunline armies are cheese.

AbyssRaven
25-03-2009, 23:09
It would slow the game down more, with 40k each edition is making ir more streamlined

Aurellis
25-03-2009, 23:15
in 40k assault armies are king.
in Fantasy gunline armies are cheese.

You obviously haven't met a Daemon or Vampire army :rolleyes:

sabre4190
25-03-2009, 23:18
Well, its kind of going under the assumption that any close combat attacks dont have the same kind of pentration effects. For ranged weaponry, the type of bullet/weapon makes a huge difference when it comes to the bullets power/velocity. Bullets make a massive difference in AP value. It could be assumed that any close combat attack is not going to differ in armor penetration value by a huge margin. Every weapon uses "blunt" force when compared to a bullet traveling at incredibly high velocities and going right through something. The differing abilities of close combat weapons would be factored into the wielders strength, and to agree attacks and WS (a tau rifle butt doesnt help his WS, but WE have mastered their more deadly weapons. Maybe).

I also wouldnt say that an assault weapon is either AP1 or nothing. If weve established that the strength of a weapon does not work for penetration, then the only difference is the existance of a power field, that just ignores armor. Its not sharper or blunter, it just has an additional device.

Thats my only way of explaining it. Does it make sense? Maybe not, but im just throwing stuff out there. And for the record, I do think chainswords should give an extra benefit in close combat. Even if its something overt like +1S.

catbarf
25-03-2009, 23:23
It would slow the game down more

If you're an incompetent six-year-old drooling on the rulebook.

Seriously. It's not complicated at all. All this supposed streamlining has done little to improve the pace of the game, while at the same time cutting out stuff that just makes sense.

SimonL
25-03-2009, 23:25
It would slow the game down more, with 40k each edition is making ir more streamlined

Read "streamlined" as kid friendly ;) Seriously, Kill Points? Adding up victory points was too difficult so they remove the need to count past 10?

Corrode
25-03-2009, 23:48
Read "streamlined" as kid friendly ;) Seriously, Kill Points? Adding up victory points was too difficult so they remove the need to count past 10?

You clearly don't play Imperial Guard.

catbarf
25-03-2009, 23:50
You clearly don't play Imperial Guard.

I do. Thanks for the screwover, Gee-Dub!

D.B.
26-03-2009, 00:20
I've long thought this was something of a missed opportunity by GW. Giving close combat weapons a profile like ranged weapons - with range perhaps being noted as 'close combat a la template weapons, and most being given a strength of 'S' like tyranid weapons (though of course not all) -would be no harder to understand, but would offer more options to make more distinctive armaments than we've currently got. It would open other opportunities too - Weird orky close combat weapons which are strong but suffer from 'Gets Hot!', special eldar powerfists with a lower strength but the 'lance' rule perhaps, just off the top of my head.

Bunnahabhain
26-03-2009, 01:21
Becuse when the change to an AP system was made in 3rd ed, simplification was the name of the game, so listing APs for close combat weapons seemed excessive.

Now, the fact it would be not awfully hard to go:

Normal CC attacks AP-, chainsaws AP5, power weapons AP2, Dreadnaught CCW AP1
and such like, with assortedl stuff using USRs as suggested above...

and use the existing system, which would take no rules writing, not slow things down, unless you really need to think hard if your guardsmen get a save against the Assualt marines chainswords ( no), and add depth and flavour.

EDIT:
At a risk of getting this moved to rules develoment, how about a list of proposed CC weapon APs?

AP- Basic CC attacks- bayonets etc.

AP6: Simple CC weapons- swords, axes

AP5: Chain swords, choppas

AP4: Heavy close combat weapons, chain axes, ogryns, Nid warriors, big choppas

AP3: Power weapons, lightning claws

AP2: power fists, force weapons, MCs??

AP1: DCCW, MCs??, chain-fists, thunder hammers

Clearly for stuff with inbuilt weapons, daemons and nids, you slot them in as appropriate, Hormagunts might warrant AP5, whilst a bloodcrusher or broodlord might be AP3. Pick a number that fits with background and desired performance.

it is a good way to increase the amount of AP3 about, which makes AP2 more useful.

Make suggestions, and I'll edit them in.

Ronin_eX
26-03-2009, 01:44
It would slow the game down more, with 40k each edition is making ir more streamlined

*snicker*

Is that why the rules are still lumps of disparate systems lashed to a system that is a twenty year old dinosaur of a basic rule set? Because the 40k system is never something I would call streamlined, ever. Simplified maybe but streamlining evokes feelings of efficiency and fine tuning that have been absent from GW since... Well crap maybe the move from Rogue Trader to 2nd Edition (both great rule sets in their time but 2nd Edition used all the playtesting from RT to improve the basic rules).

The AP system is actually a perfect example of how the game is not streamlined because it manages to do the same thing using two different systems. The AP system is introduced as a means of modeling (poorly but that is neither here nor there for this discussion) body armour being penetrated by powerful weapons. So with this system in place they get to ranged weapons and then they ignore it for a fully binary system of "you get a save/you don't get a save". Hell even stating that is more wordy than saying "A power weapon is an AP2 close combat weapon". Then we got things like rending and the choppa rule added on to try and smooth the binary nature of the system out instead of just using a system described earlier for a purpose it was intened for.

In a streamlined game the armour penetration model used would be the same whether you were shooting a guy or hacking his face off in most cases and GW kind of showed their ineptitude here by deciding to use two different systems for the exact same results.

Hell the 4th Edition and 5th Edition versions of Feel No Pain also point out the silliness of this. In 4th a massive plasma cannon shot could be shrugged off but a powered sharp stick would cause a wound too grievous even for something that tough to shrug off. So to "fix" this GW added AP1 and AP2 weapons to the restrictions, which goes to show how GW like to fix system problems using band aid solutions instead of getting to the root of the problem (in this case the AP system applying to shooting only).

And now with the changes to rending we have the AP system used in hand to hand in a specialized instance so the distinction between shooting and hand to hand as a reason is no longer a viable excuse.

This is not a system one would expect to find in a "streamlined" game, especially not now that they've had a decade to catch and fix it. If they insist on using the AP system to model penetration of armour then they should use it for close combat as well.

My personal thought would be:

- Chain Weapons: AP5
- Heavy CCW(Khornate chain axes, choppas): AP4
- Power Weapons: AP3
- Power Fists: AP2
- Dreadnought CCW/Monstrous Creatures/Chainfist: AP1

This gives a smooth weapon progression and makes power weapons more varied while helping out with a problem posed by 2+ saves being of little use in the current meta-game due to lack of common AP3 weapons.

Cane
26-03-2009, 01:57
It would slow the game down more, with 40k each edition is making ir more streamlined

Agreed, this is probably one of the main reasons why GW hasn't implemented such mechanics. I jumped from third edition to fifth and so far I have to say that fifth edition is more entertaining and faster paced.

Having CC AP weapon values would be a pretty big change compared to how the rest of the rules were updated.

kikkoman
26-03-2009, 03:40
somebody should document if Fantasy or 40k takes longer to play

holmcross
26-03-2009, 03:51
It would slow down CC, but I'd really like some more options other then "rending" and "power weapons" with the occasional + to strength or an additional attack.

I was really dissapointed to see armor modifers, like khornite chainaxes and choppas go. It just limits the types of assault units in the game. The person who removed this is a total idiot. It added a fantasic intermediate step between regular CC weaps and those that completly ignore armor. Again, that person is an idiot and I'd love to see them argue otherwise. This does not slow down CC at all, provided entire units have the same upgrade (ok streamline fanatics, force those types of upgrades to be unit wide so different types of armor saves don't need to be rolled).

For example, flayed ones should get a change in the next necron codex, but what should it be? I think armor modifers would have been great: it would give them a specific role but limit the usefulness. Power weapons could potentially be too much, and rending attacks would open up thier assault options to a level that I don't think necrons should have (they'd be able to hurt anything with wounds). So what else is there? More attacks? A strength bonus?

Just another problem of GW stripping this game down, and the eventual homogenization of all units into a few different basic types.

Bookwrak
26-03-2009, 04:31
I see absolutely nothing wrong with giving Flayed Ones a 1/6 chance of hurting anything with wounds.

Anyway, adding AP to CC just seems like another way to ensure Orks never get an armor save. :angel:

holmcross
26-03-2009, 04:54
I'd like to keep the gauss/disruption fields mechanic alive for Necrons. An armor save modifer would allow them to keep that specific mechanic, while giving them a better chance against MEQ assault force.

"Give it rending" seems to be the de-facto suggestion whenever a CC unit is lacking. I like Necrons because of thier specific playstyle that makes them different from other armies.

De-reailing the thread here, but I'd like to see Flayed Ones become a counter-charge elite (in the FoC) unit that mainly protects warriors from getting ripped apart. A 0-1 limitation would also be a good idea, to prevent spam CC lists. Thier main function is to protect warriors (which I think should still be the basis of a Necron force when they do the re-write).

Hellebore
26-03-2009, 05:20
It would not slow down the cc phase in the slightest, unless people think that having AP values on guns makes the shooting phase really slow?

I make my attacks, the ones that are AP5 ignore Sv5+, the ones that are AP2 ignore all armour. The way it happens would be no different to the way 5th ed requires you to roll your shots in groups of similar weapons.

Hellebore

Dr.Clock
26-03-2009, 07:16
Certainly: it would not slow down the game.

I don't think that is the most pressing argument against such a rule.

The problem is that AP for shooting is somewhat mediated by cover. You can't get a cover save from assault...

I think people are forgetting another important point: the variations that strength and attacks values can and do provide. Striking scorpions are a good case in point. They have the gear to add an extra attack and a point of strength to their profile.

If marines had AP5 CC attacks, getting punched by one would be the direct equivalent of taking a bolter hit. A marine on the charge is doing exactly the same amount of damage as a marine rapid firing at close range: a CSM 50% more.

It's close, I agree... but one must admit that if your flak helmet gets in the way of a marine's fist, or knife, you might (MIGHT) survive... less so with the bolter.

The fact of the matter is that the type of damage dealt in combat is generally totally different than the majority of shooting attacks.

Also: if AP is linked to strength, the better models get better and the worse models get worse. Guardsmen get better against no-one except kroot (?) and anyone else with 6+ saves (??) while space marines get better against about half the armies out there.

There are already enough factors at play in CC: strength, relative WS, inititiative, attacks. Compare this to shooting: BS, S, AP, rate of fire and sometimes cover. If one considers that WS does not exist in isolation, they come out to about the same number of variables...

In addition, it is clear that the strength system in 40k is geared to shooting. I think a guardsman already HAS a bonus for having a bayonet: he has the same strength characteristic as his lasgun. In unarmed combat, I think one might expect most models to in fact have a S characteristic one LOWER than their toughness. Most 'hits' are not going to render someone combat ineffective. In a knife fight, things get a little more 'even'.

Finally: combat is already more decisive than shooting. With any substantive change to the basic mechanics, most assaults would be over before they began: there would be next to no way for, say, guardians to survive a charge by your standard marine squad.

In sum, don't 'give it rending'.... give it some extra strength or more attacks... oh wait... we did already.

Cheers,

The Good Doctor.

Ronin_eX
26-03-2009, 07:40
Who said everything gets an AP, why would marines be AP5? At its most simple we just make all normal CCWs AP - and power weapons AP2.

Even adding AP5 chain weapons a normal marine will not be AP5, he will be AP- because he has a knife. I don't think anyone has suggested AP linked to strength (and if they have then you must realize it is not the only way of doing it).

As for shooting strength to close combat strength it must be remembered that a "dead" model may only be knocked out as well. Having a strength equal to a gun is only around because there are ten possible values for strength and a finite rolling range of 1 to 6. A lasgun would be stronger than a normal human attack with a knife but the difference isn't so huge that it warrants an increase (also remember that close combat is supposed to involve close quarters shooting).

Also keep in mind that adding more varied AP to close combat may actually reduce the decisive nature and make it last longer. In any case I don't see how it gets any more decisive than "it ignores armour" even if chain swords get AP5 it still wont be any worse than rending or power weapons. It simply makes it so that not every unit needs power weapons or rending in order to be considered good. It give a sliding scale instead of a binary value of ignore or don't ignore.

And for the last time they really only need to make it:
- AP- for normal CCW attacks
- AP2 for power weapon attacks

This would at least be more efficient than the current method if only because it would remove them having to explain how armour penetration works in hand to hand because it was already described in the shooting chapter. They could also just make Feel No Pain ignored by AP1 or AP2 weapons instead of also having to add in "and close combat weapons that ignore saves". Really it isn't rocket science, it is simply a change that uses the rules they have already written in order to allow people to learn the system more efficiently as well as saving space writing about a system that does the exact same thing as another system but via different methods (which is poor design).

In conclusion:
- They already have a system to model armour penetration
- No, it doesn't take any longer
- Using it would be as easy as changing descriptions of the weapons
- They already have a bloody system for it! :p

Instead of power weapons ignoring saves they are AP2 (exact same mechanics) while all other attacks are AP-. If this is hard then you may as well put the current rulebook down and step away because 40k may be getting a little heady for ya. ;)

Treadhead_1st
26-03-2009, 09:55
I'm with Dr.Clock on this one.

Guard, Guardians and so forth would be annihilated in CC if there was any greater extent of bypassing saves like there is now.

It'll help out Marines (who'se Sergeant, and some people model all regular guys) have Chainswords as standards. These guys would be able to take out two or three Guardsmen with ease. Whilst fluffy, it would mean the Chainsword either needs to be a paid upgrade, or the Marines get more expensive otherwise it unbalances the game even more in CCs favour.

Chaos would become a nightmare, since they ALL have Chainswords, which means a squad would butcher anything not in Carapace armour or better. They already do, but a few lucky rolls can keep the squad delayed, and maybe (once in a blue moon) mean you can kill one back.

Although Chainswords probably should do more than a combat knife, for game balance it's easier that they are the same thing. If you have models who'se guns ignore one factions armour entirely, and then they ignore armour in CC, who is going to play the other faction (which, in the case of Orks and Guard can't get much cheaper to offset this) are going to be at massive disadvantages.

And how would it affect Dark Eldar - an army that can't stand up to any shooting, but is happiest in CC with the enemy. If the enemy starts ignoring their saves there as well (ok 6+ isn't going to do much, but it's something) then it starts to appear as if the odds are totally stacked against them (especially that with Countercharge the superior movement of the Dark Eldar wouldn't allow them to dodge things like Sergeants with Chainswords/Power Weapons/Power Fists).

Poseidal
26-03-2009, 10:21
Another solution!

Just get rid of AP and replace with an improved ASM. Problem solved.

AP doesn't work well on a D6 system, and GW games are unlikely to adopt non-D6 dice now.

Xelloss
26-03-2009, 11:08
- AP- for normal CCW attacks
- AP2 for power weapon attacks


I agree, this would be quicker to explain.

While give more AP for chainsword would result in a big mess since they are very common weapon (CSM, BT, SW, BA), so a major revision of costs would be needed - and there is quite a lot of things more urgent to deal with.

MasterDecoy
26-03-2009, 11:16
Another solution!

Just get rid of AP and replace with an improved ASM. Problem solved.

AP doesn't work well on a D6 system, and GW games are unlikely to adopt non-D6 dice now.

and ASM are more realistic why?
Either your gun is rated to penitrate the armour or its not.

If it is rated to penitrate the armour, they would be better off without any.
If it isnt rated to penitrate the armour, you might still get a lucky shot off.

If your gun isnt rated to penitrate the armour, then its certainly not going to make it easier to kill them is it?

MadJackMcJack
26-03-2009, 11:17
Maybe they wanted non-MEQ armies to get an amour save at some point in the game?

Poseidal
26-03-2009, 11:45
Maybe they wanted non-MEQ armies to get an amour save at some point in the game?

The actual ASM numbers should be redone as it was too prevalent and large in 2nd ed.

And now, almost no MEQ armies get an armour save anyway almost.

As for realism, the D6 AP system isn't realistic anyway with the 'remove your armour'. What about people who are totally covered but in bad armour? shouldn't it be a 2+ save against things with bad penetration and no save against things that are good? And ones that are less covered but with stronger armour?

MasterDecoy
26-03-2009, 11:54
As for realism, the D6 AP system isn't realistic anyway with the 'remove your armour'. What about people who are totally covered but in bad armour? shouldn't it be a 2+ save against things with bad penetration and no save against things that are good? And ones that are less covered but with stronger armour?

It doesnt matter how much of your body is covered, soldiers are trained to shoot for the body. (It stands to reason because it is by far the largest and easiest part of a moving target to hit)

Putting armour completely over your body will just lower the chances of being wounded by shrapnel and richoche's

The fact of the matter is, Either the bullets can penitrate it, or they cant, no other factor comes into it, if you cant penitrate the armour, you need more luck or more skill aiming at parts of the body that are very hard to hit on a stationary target, let alone one that is activly trying to kill you back.

If I have a flack jacket and you have a 9mm pistol, your going to have a very hard time kiling me by shooting me in the chest, you will need to get lucky, or be very skillful and get a headshot, or wound an unarmourd area. That takes time to aim and/or a lot of ammunition.

However, If I have that same flack jacket, and your shooting me with an assault rifle, I would probably be better off if I didnt have the jacket, those bullets will punch right through it like a hot knife through butter.

Poseidal
26-03-2009, 11:59
It doesnt matter how much of your body is covered, soldiers are trained to shoot for the body. (It stands to reason because it is by far the largest and easiest part of a moving target to hit)

Putting armour completely over your body will just lower the chances of being wounded by shrapnel and richoche's

The fact of the matter is, Either the bullets can penitrate it, or they cant, no other factor comes into it, if you cant penitrate the armour, you need more luck or more skill aiming at parts of the body that are very hard to hit on a stationary target, let alone one that is activly trying to kill you back.
Acid spit, flamethrowers, plasma balls, 'gauss' and who knows what other weapons don't work in the same way as bullets. Even more mundane weapons like Frag missiles don't 'aim' like that; a jacket will protect your body organs but in a large enough blast your heard and arms could be damaged without the full body shoot.

MasterDecoy
26-03-2009, 12:11
Acid spit, flamethrowers, plasma balls, 'gauss' and who knows what other weapons don't work in the same way as bullets. Even more mundane weapons like Frag missiles don't 'aim' like that; a jacket will protect your body organs but in a large enough blast your heard and arms could be damaged without the full body shoot.

Hence why gauss should be rending, and not what it is now (however, in its defence, It was written 2 editions ago)

Frag missles, cause casultys, not from the actual explosion, but from the pieces of shrapnal from the exterior shell of the missle when it does explode, they dont have much penitirive power, but its like a massive shotgun effect, it hits everything, as such any type of armour that is of a 4+ standard is more than likely going to cover most, if not all of your body anyway, for example caripace armour, or what the tau wear.

Flame throwers are another deal alltogether as they bathe the area in flames and should probably be ap4(both of the heavy and normal variaty, just with different strength values), power armour or equivelent would probably be unaffected mostly unless you got lucky and the suit malfunctioned.

Poseidal
26-03-2009, 12:18
Frag missles, cause casultys, not from the actual explosion, but from the pieces of shrapnal from the exterior shell of the missle when it does explode, they dont have much penitirive power, but its like a massive shotgun effect, it hits everything, as such any type of armour that is of a 4+ standard is more than likely going to cover most, if not all of your body anyway, for example caripace armour, or what the tau wear.
That was entirely my point. Why isn't the 4+ armour 2+ against shrapnel effects? It should protect in most cases and only buckle under a direct hit.

AP system is not 'realistic' but another abstraction.

Lord Damocles
26-03-2009, 12:43
The other problem would be the amount of nerd rage meltdown which would be initiated:

If a Chainsword is AP5, and a big Hammer is AP-, what's going to happen to all the people who have Hammer-wielding Assault Marines?
Or that Priest who has a bit-of-wood-with-a-nail-in-it-which-is-now-as-effective-as-a-Chainsword, because the rules state that Priests have Chainswords?

Poseidal
26-03-2009, 12:51
To be fair, Lord Damocles, the same thing pretty much happened in the 2nd -> 3rd switch-over.

Hellebore
26-03-2009, 13:05
The rules for a chainsword in dark heresy are justifiably nasty.

They do 1D10+2 damage with 2 pen plus strength bonus (so the average human with a chainsword does 1D10+5 damage with 2 pen) and roll 2 d10 and pick the highest when rolling to wound. They pretty much ignore flak armour anyway.


Armour is an abstract concept in the game, and always has been. If you're wearing flak armour and are simply HIT by a bullet, you are effectively taken out of the fight even if the bullet didn't penetrate. That force spread over a wider area still breaks ribs and causes winding etc.

A solid suit of armour like carapace or power would transfer the energy around the armour rather than into the wearer.

Things like lasers though would have no impact at all, but would transfer heat through the armour very quickly unless it was designed out of a good insulator. In that instance the laser would transfer heat energy very quickly and cause dangerous damage. Lasers would evaporate tissue, so the damage they do would be much harder to repair, rather than stitching two sides of a wound back together, you are just missing a plug of flesh.

A method I've used for my D10 mordheim game uses a similar principle to the armour save modifier, but turns it into a table. weapons have a penetration value that is compared to an armour value on a table (like strength versus toughness) this gives you the roll you need to penetrate the armour on a D10. So you roll to hit, roll to penetrate and roll to wound. All using pretty much the same concept, compare BS to I, compare Pen to Armour, compare Str to Tou.

But Poseidal raises a good point in regards to % of body covered versus actual protective quality of the armour.

For instance, although a carapace chest piece provides a lot more protection than flak, any blast that hits the wearer will pretty much ignore it, because of the number of uncovered body locations.

So to be more realistic, you'd need to know what % of body the armour covers. If a weapon strikes an unarmoured area it doesn't matter what it's penetration is.



Hellebore

R Man
26-03-2009, 13:12
Another solution!

Just get rid of AP and replace with an improved ASM. Problem solved.

AP doesn't work well on a D6 system, and GW games are unlikely to adopt non-D6 dice now.

Actually ASM are not that good for 40k. Remember that while it migh seem strange that a Heavy Bolter has the same armour piercing capabilities as a lasgun against marines, the Heavy Bolter has more shots, and is more likely to wound and thus force the marine to take more saves. ASM would greatly favour horde armies that wouldn't get a save anyway, and MEQ armies would get dominated when their armour fails them.

Also the Close Combat Modifiers works well for Fantasy, where only a handful of attacks are used (usually) but in 40k entire units with multiple attacks can fight and some units get 30, 40 or more. For some armies they only really get AS in combat and ASM or AP only makes this more deadly.

Roachcoach
26-03-2009, 13:30
Actually, on a bit of a tangent, does the book actually list the assualt AP's anywhere?

If not, doesnt that mean that all assault is -1 damage to vehicles for being AP- ?

I dont recall seeing a specific exclusion and being at work I cant check >.<

Poseidal
26-03-2009, 13:47
Actually, on a bit of a tangent, does the book actually list the assualt AP's anywhere?

If not, doesnt that mean that all assault is -1 damage to vehicles for being AP- ?

I dont recall seeing a specific exclusion and being at work I cant check >.<
Only weapons with an AP: - stat have the penalty to damage tables. No H2H weapon or attack has AP: -; or any AP at all.

Roachcoach
26-03-2009, 13:50
Ah, exclusion by omission then :)

cheers

Bookwrak
26-03-2009, 13:57
Only weapons with an AP: - stat have the penalty to damage tables. No H2H weapon or attack has AP: -; or any AP at all.

That would be another problem with assigning AP to assault attacks. Suddenly, tanks just got a whole lot safer.

Ronin_eX
26-03-2009, 17:33
That would be another problem with assigning AP to assault attacks. Suddenly, tanks just got a whole lot safer.

Well against fists and small arms at least. But against specialized weapons like grenades and power weapons there is no real change. But with people complaining about vehicles getting so much weaker in close combat is that such a bad thing?

Laser guided fanatic
26-03-2009, 18:03
The rules for a chainsword in dark heresy are justifiably nasty.

They do 1D10+2 damage with 2 pen plus strength bonus (so the average human with a chainsword does 1D10+5 damage with 2 pen) and roll 2 d10 and pick the highest when rolling to wound. They pretty much ignore flak armour anyway.



Hellebore

And that makes how much sense?

Thanatos_elNyx
26-03-2009, 18:08
For example, flayed ones should get a change in the next necron codex, but what should it be? I think armor modifers would have been great: it would give them a specific role but limit the usefulness. Power weapons could potentially be too much, and rending attacks would open up thier assault options to a level that I don't think necrons should have (they'd be able to hurt anything with wounds). So what else is there? More attacks? A strength bonus?

A reroll to wound?

Their claws look pretty similar to L.Claws but giving them power weapons would be quite strong.

borithan
26-03-2009, 21:54
and ASM are more realistic why?
Either your gun is rated to penitrate the armour or its not.Some sections of armour will be likely to thinner. The ASM would represent that some areas which were impervious to less penetrating weapons would now be penetrable reducing the overall level of protection.



It doesnt matter how much of your body is covered, soldiers are trained to shoot for the body. (It stands to reason because it is by far the largest and easiest part of a moving target to hit)As far as I am aware much battlefield firing isn't at single targets, but the general position of enemy troops. The shooting of a 40k does not represent single aimed fire by the soldiers, but multiple rapid bursts of fire, not at individuals but at units as a whole. Many "shots" that "hit" will not hit the torso. In fact, many might not hit the person at all. A "kill" in 40k is often someone just getting put out of the fight, for whatever reason, be it an actual kill, a wound, serious or minor, or just the guy just sitting there ******** himself at almost having his head blown into tiny pieces by the bolt that just missed his head by inches. In the Rogue Trader book it was suggested that a full 50% of those "killed" would be ready to fight again at the end of the battle.



For instance, although a carapace chest piece provides a lot more protection than flak, any blast that hits the wearer will pretty much ignore it, because of the number of uncovered body locations.

So to be more realistic, you'd need to know what % of body the armour covers. If a weapon strikes an unarmoured area it doesn't matter what it's penetration is.This works for a game like Dark Heresy, or even really detailed skirmish game, but for 40k that is abstracted into the armour save... which is why ASM seem perfectly fine to me.

Anyway, I don't think AP fof close combat attacks would work very well. One major thing is that a game has been designed around them not having them, but aside from that, as said, it would just further favour close combat over shooting.

Dr.Clock
26-03-2009, 21:56
I would go with a reroll to wound, S4 and 2 attacks. Not crazy amazing but will rip through most infantry pretty good... puts them pretty darn close to striking scorpions actually... add in some type of combat res. bonus ("they're wearing Bob's face!) and these guys are perfect for seeing off your front line troops. If the game developers find that they still don't really do enough, furious charge is a possibility as well (SLICY DEATH AWAITS!). This would make them excellent shock troops while keeping their costs down where they should be. Given FC and infiltrate or deep-strike, you should be looking at a unit on par with a scorpion unit. 16 or 17 per model seems about right.

This would mean that necrons have decent CC units for basic infantry (flayed ones) and elite units (wraiths) without either making the other redundant. Using scarabs against vehicles is a no-brainer at this point... Rending flayed ones would make them THE necron assault unit. I for one really like wraiths and would be sad if they got a back seat to Flayed ones. A well-rounded necron list should have both IMO.

This is a little OT, but I think it shows that it is still possible to make more variation within the existing structure without resorting to any type save mods...

Cheers,

The Good Doctor.

MasterDecoy
26-03-2009, 22:04
As far as I am aware much battlefield firing isn't at single targets, but the general position of enemy troops. The shooting of a 40k does not represent single aimed fire by the soldiers, but multiple rapid bursts of fire, not at individuals but at units as a whole. Many "shots" that "hit" will not hit the torso. In fact, many might not hit the person at all. A "kill" in 40k is often someone just getting put out of the fight, for whatever reason, be it an actual kill, a wound, serious or minor, or just the guy just sitting there ******** himself at almost having his head blown into tiny pieces by the bolt that just missed his head by inches. In the Rogue Trader book it was suggested that a full 50% of those "killed" would be ready to fight again at the end of the battle.


hence why ASM are do not actualy make sense, if your gun cant penitrate the armour, then you need a bit of luck to hit those areas that are thinner/unprotected (Bear in mind I already went over this) And shooting at caripice armour with a gun thats not rated to penitrate it has a 50% chance that you will hit one of those spots.

A gun being more powerful isnt going to make it easier to hit someones arm, you need more luck, or skill to hit those spots that are unprotected.

djinn8
26-03-2009, 22:17
Problem I can see is that giving CCW AP values will only work against Guard, Ork and some Eldar. In the case of Guard it'll make them worse in melee than Tau who will still have there 4+ save in most cases. And would giving AP to CCW demand a rise in point cost? If so, then should Khorn Bezerkers pay extra to kill guard/ork/eldar while gaining nothing gainst MEQs?

borithan
26-03-2009, 22:31
hence why ASM are do not actualy make sense, if your gun cant penitrate the armour, then you need a bit of luck to hit those areas that are thinner/unprotected (Bear in mind I already went over this)But with a more penetrating weapon there will be more areas which can be hurt. For a lasgun, say, you would have to hit joints (or seomthing like that) on a Space Marine to actually wound him. With a boltgun it might penetrate the arm, head and leg armour as well, making the armour less protecting. Yes, the boltgun may still be stopped by the chest plate, but he has less overall protection than against the lasgun.



And shooting at caripice armour with a gun thats not rated to penitrate it has a 50% chance that you will hit one of those spots.We have a lasgun, which can't penetrate any of the armoured sections. We have a boltgun which can penentrate the weaker points of the armour sections, and then we have a... a heavy bolter, which can penetrate all of the armour. The armour provides less protection to the boltgun than to the lasgun, as there are some sections the lasgun cannot penetrate that the boltgun can, but it still provides some, as the thicker parts still protect against the bolt. Therefore the armour provides less protection, but it still provides some, unlike against the heavy bolter.



A gun being more powerful isnt going to make it easier to hit someones arm, you need more luck, or skill to hit those spots that are unprotected.No, it isn't going to make it more likely you will hit the arm, but it may penetrate the arm armour if it hits, while a lighter weapon would not. This would result in generally reduced protection from the armour, even though it still may not penetrate the thicker armour elements.

Also, armour doesn't just include physical ability to stop the shots. As we have discussed it includes how much of the body it covers. It also probably includes the wearer's confidence in the armour (as some "kills" will probably be temporary psychological ones, rather than true kills or even wounding hits). A guardsman has little confidence that his armour will provide protection against many weapons, so if he thinks he might get hit he may be more likely to bug out of the battle. The Carapace armoured stormtrooper, however, knows that the armour provides quite good protection. However, he knows that there are some areas that boltguns can penetrate, and so he is less confident about it when facing close hits by boltguns. However, he doesn't now quite as naked as the guardsman. Therefore we again have a reduced but not totally negated save.

Lame Duck
26-03-2009, 22:43
Giving cc weapons APs will just further the rock paper scissors nature of the game, at least you can make cover saves when being shot at by low APs.

Save modifiers could work. Minus the AP value from your save (so high APs are better). Come to think of it, why don't they do that for shooting anyway?

MasterDecoy
26-03-2009, 22:49
Also, armour doesn't just include physical ability to stop the shots. As we have discussed it includes how much of the body it covers. It also probably includes the wearer's confidence in the armour (as some "kills" will probably be temporary psychological ones, rather than true kills or even wounding hits). A guardsman has little confidence that his armour will provide protection against many weapons, so if he thinks he might get hit he may be more likely to bug out of the battle. The Carapace armoured stormtrooper, however, knows that the armour provides quite good protection. However, he knows that there are some areas that boltguns can penetrate, and so he is less confident about it when facing close hits by boltguns. However, he doesn't now quite as naked as the guardsman. Therefore we again have a reduced but not totally negated save.

I think you'll find most armour would be made of the same material no matter where its located, there isnt much point adding extra armour to your arms and legs iff it isnt going to stop the same bullets a torso peice would.

My understanding is:
6+sv = flack jacket or quivelent (probably covers the chest and possibly a helmet but thats it) Very easy to hit unexposed areas and doesnt have much stopping power.

5+sv = full flack armour or equivelent (which probably covers the users arms and legs as well as the chest, probably wearing a helmet) added protection from added coverage, however anti personal rounds can still quite easily punch through it.

4+sv = Full kevlar body armour or equivelent (all areas except joints are covered) This provides decent protection, only hits on the joints or powerful rifles can penitrate it

3+sv = Fully enclosed armour or equivelent (the armour, usually powered, is like a space suit, except armoured) only very lucky shots or weapons designed to destroy tanks would be able to take one of these suckers down.

2+sv = Fully enclosed heavy armour (the armour for all intents and purposes, might as well be a tank) injurys to the user are very unlikely, however the armour may malfunction, and the user will be forced to retreat

Hellebore
27-03-2009, 06:45
And that makes how much sense?

A normal sword does 1D10+SB with 0 pen. A chainsword has monomolecular teeth spinning around at 50 kph, I'd say it would tear through most targets pretty fast (and the rolling 2D10 pick the highest is a rule in DH called, appropriately enough Tearing).

Hitting a modern kevlar vest with a chainsaw will make a mess of it.

Hellebore

Ronin_eX
27-03-2009, 08:03
Giving cc weapons APs will just further the rock paper scissors nature of the game, at least you can make cover saves when being shot at by low APs.

Save modifiers could work. Minus the AP value from your save (so high APs are better). Come to think of it, why don't they do that for shooting anyway?

How is it any different than a power weapon ignoring armour? No cover save there and it is the exact mechanical effect of AP2. o_O

Save mods certainly help smooth the curve a bit instead of the current all or nothing system. But good luck getting most 40k players to do simple math (which requires just as much mental overhead as a comparative test of two values). While the latter solution is my ideal (or a system that ups the die type and removes the armour stat as it is redundant when toughness exists) I just wonder why people go on about how streamlined 40k is when they have so many design inconsistencies like close combat not using AP on attacks when and instead making a completely different system handle close combat weapons when the exact same effect can be obtained with the AP system. Or vehicles operating under a different damage system than infantry and even large creatures (some of which can easily be classed as vehicles).

Bringing back save mods in some form would be a better solution or using a combination of the two as it makes things less binary. Perhaps adding in that if the AP and save are equal then the save is taken with a -1 mod instead would help. So firing plasma at terminator armour would give them a 3+ save instead while firing a heavy bolter against models with a 4+ save would reduce the save to 5+ instead of ignoring it. Remove cover saves and replace with a straight -1 to hit and the system is already a little more varied, interesting and intuitive.

Bunnahabhain
27-03-2009, 09:37
A normal sword does 1D10+SB with 0 pen. A chainsword has monomolecular teeth spinning around at 50 kph, I'd say it would tear through most targets pretty fast (and the rolling 2D10 pick the highest is a rule in DH called, appropriately enough Tearing).

Hitting a modern kevlar vest with a chainsaw will make a mess of it.

Hellebore

Yes, so Have I, it makes a right mess of the chain saw.

Chain saw resistient clothing is made from multiple layers of either ballistic nylon, or kevlar, ie the strongest practicable synthetic fibres about.

You hit it with a chain saw, what happens most of the time is that the blades are not sharp enough to cut the fibres, so they drag through them, and each tooth picks up a large number of fibres, and then becomes thoroughly jammed.
The area the chain hits,( normally the upper thigh, in the vicinity of your femoral artery) ends up looking like very worn velcro, and you have to stop the chainsaw, and remove the chain to clean it properly.

Of course, in 40k, chain weapons might not be vunerable to this, or to bouncing off any hard surface, due to the Ork using them thinking they work, or such like....

Roachcoach
27-03-2009, 09:43
Chainswords are the tip of the iceberg (Though they've always been weak in 40k). Plasma pistols lose their stats entirely in CC yet they still count as an additional CC weapon....perhaps they just pistol whip enemies for pimp-style-points™

Poseidal
27-03-2009, 11:16
Chainswords are the tip of the iceberg (Though they've always been weak in 40k). Plasma pistols lose their stats entirely in CC yet they still count as an additional CC weapon....perhaps they just pistol whip enemies for pimp-style-points™

Actually, that's exactly what they do. :D

Lame Duck
27-03-2009, 15:42
How is it any different than a power weapon ignoring armour? No cover save there and it is the exact mechanical effect of AP2. o_O


Yes, but if you give chainsaws ap5 then assault marines will be disproportionately more effective aginst IG than Tau. Power weapons dont have as much of an effect because you don't have entire armies equipped with them, and you have a choice whether to equip them or not.

If you reverse the AP system and use them as modifiers it could work. So chainsaws would be 1. Giving orks no save, IG 6+ sv, tau 5+ etc. Then it is a proper progressive sytem where each wepon can be more balanced and appropriatly costed without being an all or nothing approach.

Power weapons could be 4, giving sms no save and teminators a 6+ sv (obviously still getting the 5+ inv save)

Acheron,Bringer of Terror
27-03-2009, 15:42
First of all, i dont think that current AP system is any good. I would call it even failure.

for flayed ones and lighting claws.

Lighting Claws used to have S8. S8. And then were nerfed.