PDA

View Full Version : ST inspired AP system



big squig
07-07-2005, 01:19
Out of the many flaws in 40K, only one actually gets in the way of the fun for me...the AP system. Sooooo, I wanted to make a system that dose not require rewriting books; a very important aspect of any rules change in a GW game.

I've been playing alot of starship troopers latley and I was intrested in the way saves are done in that game, and so, I came up with this...though it nneds some tweaking.

- When rolling to wound, if 'to wound' roll is over the weapons AP, then weapon allows no armor save.
(For example: If a fire warrior shot and hit a marine, a 'to wound roll' of 3-5 would allow a save, while a roll of 6 would ignore the marine's armor.)

- If all possible 'to wound' rolls are above the weapons AP, then the weapon cannot ignore armor saves.
(For example: A marine is shooting a carnifex. The marines bolter needs a 6+ to wound, since the only possible 'to wound' rolls are above the bolter's AP of 5, the carnifex gets its save.)

AP1 always ignores saves, but a roll of 1 still fails to wound as normal.


Thats it, a little more indepth than the current system, but some may argue thats for the better. (Not me really :D )

Let me know what you think, I havent really had much xhance to play test it. Discuss!

Gorbad Ironclaw
07-07-2005, 09:28
Considering that AP 2/3 weapons are the kings of the armoury anyway, I don't think it would have much effect. Those weapons will still ignore armour virtually all the time. Only difference would be that high end armour wouldn't protect you as well against small arms fire either.

Eversor
07-07-2005, 11:08
Only difference would be that high end armour wouldn't protect you as well against small arms fire either.
:chrome: Indeed. Which means the rule would lose the single saving grace of the AP system. So no, it's not very useful, sorry...

Adept
07-07-2005, 12:31
I have to say, the AP system in 40K does fail to make sense on a spectacular scale.

It strike me as odd that an Autocannon will completely ignore carapace armour, but power armour (or it's equivalent) will shrug it off without ill effect two thirds of the time.

I'd like to adopt the WHFB armour modifier system. It works well and makes sense.

marineowar
07-07-2005, 13:35
I'm with Adept on this one. Modifiers would be a huge improvement to 40K.
Alternatively, incorporate the armour save into the toughness (LotR) which would do away with the AP system all together.

Eversor
07-07-2005, 14:30
It strike me as odd that an Autocannon will completely ignore carapace armour, but power armour (or it's equivalent) will shrug it off without ill effect two thirds of the time.
:chrome: Like I said, it works fine for representing light/medium firearms against heavy armour, while falling short for medium heavy weapons against heavy armour. The save modifier system of 40k2 too often reduced armour to next to nothing. One way of doing it would be to mix and have both AP and Save Modifiers. Another way would be to implement some sort of "heavy shooting attack", akin to the rules for Choppas and Khornate chainaxes.

Both are needlessly complex though. The current rules work just fine, even though they're a bit undetailed.

Gorbad Ironclaw
07-07-2005, 15:22
:chrome: Like I said, it works fine for representing light/medium firearms against heavy armour, while falling short for medium heavy weapons against heavy armour. The save modifier system of 40k2 too often reduced armour to next to nothing.



It made a whole lot more sense that your armour would pretect less against an autocannon than a las rifle. And it actually made peopel stick to cover ;)

Eversor
07-07-2005, 15:49
It made a whole lot more sense that your armour would pretect less against an autocannon than a las rifle.
:chrome: Yes, that was exactly what I said ;) The problem was/is that since virtually all firearms had a save modifier of -1 or -2, even heavy armour was reduced far beyond what it should be. I totally agree that - in a perfect world - an autocannon should have more effect against power armour, and a plasma gun should have a little less. But the system as it is now works, and I don't really want to fudge it up with house rules.

But if you want me to, I could type up a short version of the house rules I was planning on fudging up the game with :D

Adept
07-07-2005, 16:49
:chrome: Yes, that was exactly what I said ;) The problem was/is that since virtually all firearms had a save modifier of -1 or -2, even heavy armour was reduced far beyond what it should be. I totally agree that - in a perfect world - an autocannon should have more effect against power armour, and a plasma gun should have a little less. But the system as it is now works, and I don't really want to fudge it up with house rules.

For sure. The system we have works, and it works pretty well too.

But if we were dreaming about the rules we'd like to put in the game, the return of armour save modifiers would be one I would vote for. I don't care if Marines would then end up with crappy saves. Maybe then they could feel the pain of the Guardsmen.

Ideally, I guess we could have an Armour Modifier system, which simply gives each weapon an armour modifier value instead of an AP value. That way we could regulate how much the various weapons effect armour.

Eversor
07-07-2005, 18:05
Ideally, I guess we could have an Armour Modifier system, which simply gives each weapon an armour modifier value instead of an AP value. That way we could regulate how much the various weapons effect armour.
The problem is that different types of weapon should affect armour in different ways. So just a modifier is as bad as just the AP we have now.

Commissar von Toussaint
07-07-2005, 20:46
The proposed change is interesting, but doesn't quite work.

The problem is that the AP system is all or nothing, making the game inherently imbalanced.

The old system of using save modifiers was much better as it created a graduated scale and made certain weapons universally useful.

Obviously, I'm a big fan of it, since I still play 2nd edition. Yes, marines are more vulnerable to small-arms fire. I think they should be.

If you don't like being shot at, use some cover once in a while. The current system makes zero sense and this leads to highly unrealistic and generally silly tactics.

big squig
08-07-2005, 05:04
Oh yes, I'm a big fan of save mods too (actually I prefer LotR armor system most of all), but I was looking for a new (if only slightly better) save system for 40K that would not require re-writing codexes.

Delicious Soy
08-07-2005, 07:24
Yes, marines are more vulnerable to small-arms fire. I think they should be.Would they become that vulnerable? I think it armour mods were an individual stat and not based off strength (ala WFB) it would work. In 2nd ed some small arms (shuri cats for example) can pump out a silly amount of shots. Nowadays, rate of fire is reduced so I don't think we'd see a SM Tac squad get dropped by a volley of catapult fire.

marineowar
08-07-2005, 12:07
Nowadays, rate of fire is reduced so I don't think we'd see a SM Tac squad get dropped by a volley of catapult fire.

I've seen it. Unfortunately... I saw it happen to me. 20 guardians + scatter laser = 1 marine left. He passed his Ld test so they charged him, took one guardian down with him. :(

But next turn I flamed them to death with my second squad :D

I did win the game in the end, but only just.

Thirdeye
10-07-2005, 00:15
Hummm. SST works precisely because it doesnít use AP or Sv Mods. You simply role against the target modelís Target/Kill numbers. Role a kill and remove the model. Role the Target number and the model must make a save.

There is no middle ground. If ya want SST efficiency and playability ya gotta convert to the SST system. Give every model Target and Kill values and every weapon a Damage dice profile (a Damage characteristic).

Personally I think converting to a SST type system would be well worth the effort.

Delicious Soy
10-07-2005, 02:29
I've seen it. Unfortunately... I saw it happen to me. 20 guardians + scatter laser = 1 marine left. He passed his Ld test so they charged him, took one guardian down with him. :(

But next turn I flamed them to death with my second squad :D

I did win the game in the end, but only just.Yes but you don't see it happen at 24" range with each catapult rolling a sustained fire dice. If a player gets within 12" with afull unharmed guardian squad then really, he deserves to mush a tac squad :p

Commissar von Toussaint
11-07-2005, 20:54
I've seen it. Unfortunately... I saw it happen to me. 20 guardians + scatter laser = 1 marine left. He passed his Ld test so they charged him, took one guardian down with him.

It took 20 guys AND a heavy weapon to take down a squad? Geez.

That's what I mean - shooting has no teeth nowadays.

It's either roll box lids full of dice to pick off stragglers or instant death. And because those AP2 weapons are so deadly, GW "balances" things by making them explode a good portion of the time.

You know, even the MK I plasma guns are more stable than the stuff used in 4th ed.

More to the point, a sliding scale is what is needed.

The most important consideration when resovling shooting is whether the target is in cover, not what level of armor it is wearing. The moment armor matters more, you have serious balance issues.

At present, armor counts more than cover. It didn't used to be that way, which is why things were more balanced.

Delicious Soy
15-07-2005, 07:40
I think the problem is that cover was thrown into the armour category. Affecting the accuracy of weapons might be a better way to go about things.

McMullet
19-07-2005, 16:05
Save modifiers in 40K would work if they were toned down. Small arms should have no save modifier, who cares if orks get 6+ saves against bolters? Then things like heavy bolters and autocannon should have maybe -1 or -2. The absuloute max should be -4 for melta weapons and railguns. The problem with the AP system is that a worse AP is actually more beneficial inmany cases - for example, if you're fighting marines, AP X is better than AP 4, as you get more AP X weapons for your points and they're no worse at going through armour. This, frankly, is just silly - if a weapon penetrates armour better, you should want take it against armoured opponents.

Another possibility might be to have a "best possible" save as suggested, so for example an AP 3 weapon would allow a save no better than 5+, AP 4 would be 4+, AP 5 3+ and so on, but again this adds complexity to a system which, whilst not perfect from a fluff and balance perspective, works very neatly in game terms.

All in all, much as like my fantasy save modifiers, I think the AP system will stay as it is, and I don't dislike it too much. I remember when I found out about it, I refused to play 3rd ed. 40K, and went back to 2nd ed., but I eventually came around.

Bruen
19-07-2005, 16:46
The problem was/is that since virtually all firearms had a save modifier of -1 or -2, even heavy armour was reduced far beyond what it should be.

Thats easily fixed by changing the ASM values. Noone is saying that they have to be the exact same values from 2nd edition.

The current system favours 2+/3+ save armies because they can ignore low-ap weapons, while being no better for 5+/6+ save armies than 2nd edition was. The big complaint about ASM in 2nd edition was that low save armies rarely got to save at all, and it is exactly the same in 4th edition.

dugaal
15-08-2005, 20:28
Why not keep the AP system, only require that the save role is between your save, and the AP value of the weapon, with equal AP/save giving no save as usual.

For instance, AP of 6 still does squat aside from stopping flak, but additional ap's such as 5+, 4+ give considerable hinderances to power and termie armor (if shot is ap4, space marines have a 2/6 chance, needing a 3 or a 4, considerable to a -2 mod)

pros: uses existing numbers to calculate... helps take out SM :)
cons: screws up the "6's are the best" idea, by providing two number bands for failure

my 2 cents

dugaal
15-08-2005, 22:36
Thinking back, that method does stiill leave 5+ and 6+ the same, which is unfortunate, But they are so close to the top, that it doesnt really matter when modifiers come into play. There is always the 7+ dice system that one could use with modifier systems, but then your just praying for the dead anyways...