Getting more out of the AP system

[Haravikk]

This is something I proposed in this thread (which was discussing whether 3+ saves made marines too powerful), but I thought I'd share it here as a rules idea.

Now the rule is fairly straightforward, and the idea behind it is to get more value of AP4, or even just any AP weapon that is worse than your opponent's majority armour. The rule is fairly simple; if your AP value is better (lower) than the target's armour save, then they don't get to make a saving throw, if your AP is equal to their armour then they suffer a -2 penalty to the roll, and if your AP is one point worse (higher) than their save, they suffer a -1 penalty. Everything else leaves an opponent's save unaffected, as does AP-.

It's a bit of a funny one to get your head around, but I made a little table to illustrate:


Now, this may also look a bit strange at first, so it's worth remembering that the diagonal line across equal AP value would actually be 7+ for AP5 versus 5+ save, and 8+ for AP6 versus 6+ save, and these rolls are of course impossible.


What this does is allow 2+, 3+, and to a lesser extent 4+ armour saves to shrug off small-arms fire, but more lethal rounds will begin to threaten them. A side effect of the rule is also that versus 5+ and 6+ armour AP5 and 6 still ignore them as they do currently, but this makes sense due to the lightness or incomplete coverage of the armour, so 4+ saves (typically representing enclosed armour) is where you start to see the ability to shrug off damage entirely.

The result is that the system slightly devalues weapons with an AP at your armour level (no longer ignores your save) but adds value to weapons with an AP one above (worse), so you wouldn't have to shell out for as many expensive AP3 weapons to deal with marines, as a bunch AP4 firepower can be decently effective too. It also serves to distinguish between AP2 and AP1, since only AP1 can ignore all armour saves.


The idea is essentially a compromise between a full-blown armour modifier system (which could end up devaluing all armour). By only applying limited modifiers power armour still shrugs off most damage without losing any effectiveness. Of course it still isn't perfect (no bolt-on rule can be really) as costs would need to change, for lower Strength AP3 and AP2 weapons in particular, but I think it's a good rule, just a shame that it's probably too late to sneak something like this in 6th edition

[Mchagen]

I like the idea. But as you've said, it would change a lot of weapons in terms of effectiveness and therefore cost. Also, armor types would change around a bit and it would affect their costs as well.

Something I've been thinking of is modifiers to cover in addition to AP modifiers, since a more powerful weapon would just blast right through a tree or concrete rubble in a ruined building. Whereas small arms fire or bolters would be stopped by similar obstructions.

[Son of Sanguinius]

The system isn't bad, but I don't see it as being an improvement over the current system. The AP system was introduced to allow Space Marines to be tougher, and it seems your system ups the ante further. I suppose reaction to this system falls to whether or not you want Space Marines to be tougher.

[Haravikk]

Well, it's not too bad a change as essentially all armour gets a little bit worse (due to weapons inflicting the -1 penalty), though it slightly devalues AP3 and AP2, most of these weapons are just as effective for anti-tank as before so it's not a huge deal, plus you no longer need to take them just to deal with marines since AP4 will do for less. So yeah, there's definitely some discrepancy and edge cases, but it fits in okay in practise I think.


The cover problem is one I've been thinking about as well, as the current system is really pretty stupid when things like demolisher cannons can potentially leave someone unscathed just because they were behind a low wall
Easiest solution would probably be to have the cover save reduced by strength, which sounds okay in theory but then we'd have essentially two completely different save mechanics (AP with modifier for armour and Strength modifier for cover) which seems overly complex. Maybe it'd be okay, the only other problem case then are things like sniper weapons which should really have a nominal strength since the shot is meant to be placed so wouldn't be taken through cover if aimed properly.

Either that or it should borrow from fantasy, where cover actually makes things harder to hit. But even with only two types of terrain the chances of actually hitting something fall off dramatically, and it doesn't seem right a lascannon could when really you'd just shoot it at the wall someone's hiding behind until you get them, not to try to get a pot-shot when they pop out.

Actually, the simplest solution might be to just have cover be a normal save; so instead of being invulnerable it will use AP as above. If you've got armour and are in cover, then you just pick the best of the two saves and use it as armour, rather than the current behaviour of using it as an invulnerable save. If a weapon ignores cover then you can't choose to use the cover save. This way AP would at least be usable to negate cover as well, but the assumption would be that most useful cover is going to be better than a guardsman's save so they'll want to use the cover as much as possible, unlike marines who are their own mobile cover.

[R Man]

Something I've been thinking of is modifiers to cover in addition to AP modifiers, since a more powerful weapon would just blast right through a tree or concrete rubble in a ruined building. Whereas small arms fire or bolters would be stopped by similar obstructions.

I agree. I too have thought that this is the right way to go. I always found it odd how being behind a wall would not protect you from a bolter if you were a Marine, but it would if you were guard. Or how a bunker busting shell would be limited as much as las-fire. Obviously this would have to be combined with ASM, which as long as they are conservative for more common weapons would be fine.

That said, it would upset the balance of the game. Lighter troops, like Guard and some Eldar unit would probably get stronger, especially against small arms. Marines would become more resistant in cover, and less resistant out, which may not be a bad thing.
Heavier weapons would be just as effective against light troops in the open, and perhaps slightly less effective against MEQ in the open, depending on their AP. They would probably be better against most troops in cover.

There are probably some other affects this would have, but I think the idea is worth exploring.

[lanrak]

I think It would be better to look at a revised system .

One that covers ALL units in a straight forward way.

Here is my idea.(Not backward compatible but for a new rule set.)

Roll to see/hit target.(Based on targets stealth value.Add 1 to targets stealth value if in cover.)

Roll to beat targets armour.

Roll to damage 'soft target' behind armour , (if the model fails its armour save.)

ALL units have an armour value.1 to 14(or more for super heavies?)

All weapons have a Armour Piercing value (AP) from 4 to 19.

When a model is hit by a weapon, roll a D6 and add it to its AV.
If this value is HIGHER than the weapons AP, the model passes its armour save and takes no damage.
If the AP of the weapon is equal or higher than the AV+D6, roll , the model fails its armour save, and takes damage.

All weapons have a damage value.(Strenght.)
All models have a damage threshold.(Toughness.)

When a weapon penetrates the models armour.
The attacker rolls a D3or D6(Depending on weapon.)And adds it to the damage value of the weapon.
If this value is over the damage threshold of the model it causes damage.(Biological targets loose wounds, mechanical targets loose structure points .)

If the total weapon damage is over double the targets damage threshold, the target looses 2 wounds/structure points.

If the total weapon damage is over triple the targets damage threshold , the target looses 3 wounds/structure points.

Vehicles AND monstrous creatures , allocate wounds/structure points to mobility and armament.When these models take damage they lose armamanet/attacks, and or movement .

This way the AP of weapons and the AV of models determine the relative save roll required without resorting to extra modifiers!

This streamilining of the damage resolution allows lots of space to add a straightforward supression mechanic.

I may not have explained it that well.But I hope you get the basic idea.

[Haravikk]

It's a great idea, but my suspicion is that it'd be too sweeping a change for Games Workshop; they did the overhaul to a new system (3rd edition) once already and I'm not sure they'll want to do it again.
Strength and AP is a simple enough system, and it gives a decent range of weapons since you can have high strength with poor AP (only really useful against vehicles) or low strength with good AP (like hot-shot lasguns etc.) and of course all the profiles in between for more typical weapons, so it doesn't lack flexibility. Also I'm not sure if I understood how cover factors in, you only mentioned a penalty to hit, would it also provide an alternate armour value that a model can use?

Assuming they don't go the Warhammer Fantasy route of having rolls to-Wound of a 6 always being successful (which was a stupid change) then modifying vehicles to use Toughness values with facings would seem easier than effectively having everyone use vehicle armour, plus vehicles would then be able to mix and match Toughness and armour so we could have a wider range of vehicle armour types; for example, vehicles with lower Toughness but strong saves could fall to enough small arms fire (lucky shots) but are minced by anti-tank, while land raiders and super heavies would remain immune to pretty much anything that isn't anti-tank.
I did like the old system of being able to target weapons though, by giving things like turrets and sponsons their own profile, but with a to-Hit penalty, so you'd be risking a miss (smaller overall target) for an increased chance to destroy a specific weapon.

Anyway, I'm thinking that having cover treated as standard armour for non-vehicles rather than invulnerable is the best "fix" for the current cover system. It still leaves vehicles needing to be treated differently though, since regular armour is no use since they're going to be shot at by anti-tank weapons.

[lanrak]

Hi Haravikk.
I did mention its would be more for a complete re-write than another WHFB clone rejig.

I tried to keep the current interactions, AP vs Armour and strenght vs toughness.
But use the (extended value )models profile to deliver the margin of sucess rather than a series of fixed dice rolls.As this gives gradual proportioanal results without extra armour save modifiers to worry about!( WHFB.)
I find the roll to spot target then roll for armour pen then roll for damage more intuitive.
And allows the same flexibility of different AP and damage(Strenght) on weapons.And Armour (save) and damage threshold(toughness) on models.

Giving vehicles saves and toughnes to REPLACE AV, still leaves the horrendous efficiency jumps in the current AP system.Where as my proposed system allows much finer tuning and more even efficency improvments.Which means the extra USRs and special rules are not needed to put the graduation back.

In the new rule set I have been working on , ALL units have a Stealth value .This is the basis of the to see/hit roll.
As a bright red landraider 6" away , is far easier to see than a ratling sniper with full camo hiding in a tree 40" away!

The unit leader rolls to spot the target unit .(One dice roll.I prefer to use a D10 (or D20) for this.)
If they roll over the modified target stealth value they spot the target.

Simple modifiers.
Add 1(2) to the Stealth Value of target if.
Target unit in cover.
Over 24" away.(And for every 12" after this.)
Target used stealth equipment ,(camo cloaks smoke/blind grenades/launchers etc.)

Add 1(2 ) to the attackers dice roll if.
Attacker stationary.
Attacker using targeting equipment
Target less than 12" away.

This is a simple fog of war mechanic, that removes the need for wordy targeting restrictions!

(PS Units can split fire between sucessfully targeted unit within 6")

Note if the target is in HARD cover , they add the relative value to thier AV.
Eg hiding behind a sheet on a washing line makes you harder to see.
Hiding behind an armoured parapet gives you physical protection too!(Hard cover.)

Rather than have seperate balistic skill and weapon skill listings per unit, I prefer to give units unique weapon profiles that show thier skill with weapons in a direct way.
Eg.IG examples.
A poor shot with a las gun has an effective range of 18"(Conscript.)
An average shot with a las gun has effective range 24"(Standard guard.)
A good shot witha las gun has an effecitive range of 30"(Veteran.)
A specialist witha specialy adapted weapon (sniper with long las) range 36".

So the attacker measures distances to target,attempts to spot target(s).(Command value determines how many attempts the leader has.)
If they spot enemy units , simply resolve damage of weapons in range.(I m working on a simple supresion mechanic too!)

When GW changed 40k from a skirmish game (that worked with WHFB game mechnics due to low model count allowing tactical manovering and complicated modifiers for loads of detail).
To a battle game , they SHOULD have used more apropriate game mechanics!(EG like those used in Epic SM.)
Since 2002 GW game devs have been asking to allow a re-write using more suitable game mechanics.(Andy Chamber left over this aledgedly.)

And I have been looking at ways to get to '40k in 40 pages' myself for a good few years too.

[R Man]

While 40k does need an overhaul I think it's too big of a scope for the topic. Without that scope changes seldom make sense.

With that in mind, I personally don't think that the basic 40k system does not have some merit. Roll to hit, wound then armour is simple enough. The problem was loosing modifiers in some areas, especially to hit modifiers which makes stealth hard to represent.

With that in mind I would suggest this, more comprehensive change to how shooting works. First of all I would find a way to represent speed and stealth. The answer is the following:

Concealment/Evasion

Any target benefiting from either concealment and evasion is -1 to hit. Note that these are two separate rules with the same affect. Some attacks will ignore Concealment, but not Evasion and vice versa. A unit can benefit from both, but will only ever be -1 to hit.

For example, Turbo-Boosting Bikers gain evasion.
Eldar Rangers always gain concealment. As would similar units, like Lictors perhaps?

Now I would change to the ASM system with cover adding to armour. But this leaves the go-to ground rule in question. I have also thought about pinning and how these would work.

For pinning, of course some weapons always cause pinning if they hit. Such as snipers and some forms of artillery. Other weapons should be given more pinning capacity. Perhaps volume of fire should also grant pinning? But I haven't thought of the details yet. In any case, if a unit is hit by a pinning weapon, after all shooting is resolved it must take a LD test. If passed all is well. If failed the unit goes to ground. It cannot move, assault or shoot in its next turn. It will remain Gone to Ground until the players next turn. It may act normally the turn after that. So if you fail your unit goes nowhere.

For Go to Ground: Must be decided when the shot(s) are declared. The unit will gain +1 cover save and will be immune to pinning. In it's next turn the unit may move normally. However, at the start of the owning players shooting phase it must make LD test. If passed all is well. If failed the unit has become disorientated and cannot shoot or assault.

I hope this is coherent.

[Haravikk]

Now I would change to the ASM system with cover adding to armour.

Can you be more specific on how you'd implement the modifiers, i.e; would they be Strength based only, how does AP factor in?

I do agree that some limited to-Hit penalties would be nice. Personally I'd love to see the return of Overwatch if to-Hit penalties make a come-back, basically declaring Overwatch in your Shooting phase allows you to shoot instead during the enemy's turn at any unit that moves or assaults, but would suffer a further to-Hit penalty if the enemy is coming out of, or moving into cover (to represent them darting from cover to cover), or Assaulting (since the shooting unit needs to ready for close combat).

[lanrak]

Hi again.

Popular 'Quick fixes' to the current rules.
Game turn.
A moves,
B Moves
A shoots
B shoots
A assaults,
B assaults.
(Roll for initiative each turn.)

Note in the movement phase unit can;-
Remain stationary and improve fire power.(heavy /ordnance can be used, rapid fire can shoot up to 24" etc)
OR
Move ONCE, and fire in a limited way.(No heavy /ordnance, rapid fire 12")
OR
Move TWICE(run.) and NOT make any ranged attacks.(Can charge into close combat.)
(Unit do NOT move in the assault phase , but resolve close combat.)

To hit modifiers.
In cover +1 to hit.
If over half range of weapon +1 to hit.
Small target +1 to hit.
Large target -1 to hit


ASM.INSTEAD of AP.
Weapons with strenght ;-
5 -1 armour save.
6 -2 armour save
7 -3 armour save
8 -4 armour save
9+ -5 armour save.

Just some basic ideas often used with house rules...

[R Man]

Can you be more specific on how you'd implement the modifiers, i.e; would they be Strength based only, how does AP factor in?

I would keep the stat separate from Strength. Otherwise strength can become overvalued compared to other stats. Besides some weapons cause massive area damage, but can't punch through armour, like a shotgun. As long as given modifiers were conservative, I think they'd be fine.
For example
0 ASM = Small arms. Mainly Lasguns, shot guns, ork sluggas. Maybe flamers (they ignore cover anyway)
-1 ASM = This for higher calibre small arms such as Bolters, Pulse Rifles and Shuri' catapults. Also lighter Machine Guns like Stubbers and Big Shootas. Note, no Small arms past this point.
-2 ASM = Heaver guns. Heavy Bolters, Autocannons, Assault Cannons, Shuri' Cannons.
-3 ASM = High Explosives. Krak Missiles. Plasma weapons.
-4 ASM = High Powered Lasers, like Lascannons and Bright Lances.
-5 ASM = Bunker Busters. Things like the Demolisher cannon.

Of course, this isn't set in stone or anything. Just a brief idea of where certain types of weapons might be placed.

I do agree that some limited to-Hit penalties would be nice. Personally I'd love to see the return of Overwatch if to-Hit penalties make a come-back, basically declaring Overwatch in your Shooting phase allows you to shoot instead during the enemy's turn at any unit that moves or assaults, but would suffer a further to-Hit penalty if the enemy is coming out of, or moving into cover (to represent them darting from cover to cover), or Assaulting (since the shooting unit needs to ready for close combat).

I agree. One thing I think my changes would do, is increase unit durability. Most units in cover would become much tough than they are now, especially against small arms fire. In addition some cheaper troops become more resistant to small arms fire in general. Therefore something is needed to counter combat troops. Part of this is to make pinning viable again. Another part may be overwatch. Of course, it would require some testing to be sure.

lanrak
Re: Getting more out of the AP system

Hi again.

Popular 'Quick fixes' to the current rules.
Game turn.
A moves,
B Moves
A shoots
B shoots
A assaults,
B assaults.
(Roll for initiative each turn.)

Note in the movement phase unit can;-
Remain stationary and improve fire power.(heavy /ordnance can be used, rapid fire can shoot up to 24" etc)
OR
Move ONCE, and fire in a limited way.(No heavy /ordnance, rapid fire 12")
OR
Move TWICE(run.) and NOT make any ranged attacks.(Can charge into close combat.)
(Unit do NOT move in the assault phase , but resolve close combat.)

To hit modifiers.
In cover +1 to hit.
If over half range of weapon +1 to hit.
Small target +1 to hit.
Large target -1 to hit

I'm not so sure. I think before I changed this, I would look wound allocation first. Or perhaps streamlining the movement rules. But that's another discussion.

[lanrak]

Hi R Man.
I did not say those were the only options , but the ones lots of people use.

In my own re-write I brought back Movement values .(Which should have been in the above list, with the movement chioces!But I acidentaly deleted that line....)

The rought draught ran to 15 pages.(Using a fully interactive game mechanic and a unified damage resoultion I posted higher up the thread.)

But again thats another topic.

[Haravikk]

I still think 6th edition will ultimately be more of an incremental change than anything hugely sweeping, I'd expect more little changes that add up to big differences. I do hope for to-Hit modifiers to return, and I think some limited armour save modifier is reasonable.

I'm thinking something like:
AP Modifier: If AP is one point worse (higher) than target's armour save then it inflicts a -1 saving throw penalty, if it is equal or better (lower) then it inflicts a -2 penalty.
Armour Saves: Suffer AP modifiers, in addition if the AP is better than target's armour, then no armour saving throw is allowed.
Invulnerable Save: Always saves on the specified roll (no normal modifiers).
Cover Save: Suffers AP modifiers.

Basically the difference with this is that while cover saves can be reduced by AP, they can't be ignored, but standard armour can. By limiting the modifier to -2 and -1 we still get value out of the better armour and cover saves.

While this would make most light armours worse and heavier armours better, if coupled with to-Hit penalties for cover use (not against vehicles) and for things like Overwatch then I think it balances out, as armies with high armour generally have lower volumes of shooting, so the to-Hit penalty will hurt them a bit more. Especially in return since Space Marines would still be able to essentially forego cover thanks to their save, but they wouldn't benefit from the protection of to-Hit penalties when the enemy shoots at them, so guard will still be able to drop marines by weight of fire.

A moves,
B Moves

Personally I've always preferred Overwatch to alternating turns, as it was kind of the best of both worlds since you can still allow squads to fire at enemies as they run from cover, rather than being forced to shoot at them while they're in cover or not at all. I still play Necromunda from time to time and the use of Overwatch in that is really handy, and it's not too difficult since all you need to do is have a suitable counter to remind you your unit can fire as the target comes to bear.

[R Man]

Hi R Man.
I did not say those were the only options , but the ones lots of people use.

Fair enough.

I still think 6th edition will ultimately be more of an incremental change than anything hugely sweeping, I'd expect more little changes that add up to big differences. I do hope for to-Hit modifiers to return, and I think some limited armour save modifier is reasonable.

I'm not so sure. Fantasy 8th edition was a huge sweeping change. It was a major shake up and from what I gather it has largely been a success, in terms of balance and army book consistency. I think it would be a good idea to shake up the game somewhat, on the back of that success. Not saying that GW will do that, but if any time looked good for a change that time is now.

[Haravikk]

I'm not so sure. Fantasy 8th edition was a huge sweeping change. It was a major shake up and from what I gather it has largely been a success, in terms of balance and army book consistency. I think it would be a good idea to shake up the game somewhat, on the back of that success. Not saying that GW will do that, but if any time looked good for a change that time is now.

What I mean was, like 8th edition fantasy, I don't expect any individual big changes, but lots of smaller ones that add up to a big difference. For example, in 8th edition fantasy Steadfast is one of the most important changes, but taken on its own, is essentially just Stubborn for big units, which doesn't seem significant in and of itself, but when coupled with other small changes (always striking in Initiative order, Step Up allowing you to nearly always get return attacks etc.) it makes a big difference to how the game plays.

However, the core mechanics such as how regular movement, shooting, close combat and so-on work have all changed very little. This is why I don't expect that a new armour system is due anytime soon, despite the merits of lanrak's system or something similar. The return of to-Hit and saving throw modifiers may well be more likely however, since these are relatively small changes that could have a big impact on how the game is played. Combined with other things it could allow 6th to be a big departure from the currently getting stale 5th edition mech-heavy gameplay, but it'd be the result of lots of comparatively little adjustments.

[lanrak]

Hi Haravikk.
Just to allow you to shoot at enemies as they run from cover...(Without adding extra layer of additional rules for over watch/reaction rules.)

A moves.
B Shoots
A assaults.

B Moves
A Shoots
B assaults.

And there are some others, but these are more 're-write' rather than 're-jig', type ideas!

[Haravikk]

The advantage of Overwatch is that you retain the clear distinction between player turns, plus interleaved turns still doesn't represent the same thing. The point of Overwatch is trade standard shooting against setting up to shoot at a target as they move, with the penalties that that incurs. Specifically, it lets you shoot at an enemy as they move from cover to cover, where currently you can't do this as an enemy can fairly easily get into the new location before you can shoot at them; interleaved turns still have this issue too as I could for example Run in my Shooting phase, then use my normal movement to get into cover before my opponent gets to shoot.

It's also always been one of these great rules that captures what it's intended to represent, i.e; a unit waiting in the hopes of getting the most out of their shooting by either waiting till the enemy breaks from cover, or tactically, discouraging the enemy from making the attempt. It's not really a complex rule anyway, as it's literally a case of choosing not to do anything in the Shooting phase, lose your Assault phase in the process, but if an enemy unit moves, runs or assaults within your line of fire then you get to shoot. The only real complexity is having to-Hit penalties if the enemy is moving out of, or into, cover, which isn't so hard. It also adds a very fun tactic for shooting oriented forces to use.

[lanrak]

Hi Haravikk.
There are other ways to increase interaction, and include more tactical chioces , without bolting on a seperate conditional system.
'Overwatch' and 'reactions' is the common way to introduce more interaction in an army level alternating game phase.(Eg 40k and WHFb game turn.)

Are you familiar with the simple order system used with 'Net Epic'.(Fan developed Epic Space Marine.)

You decide what your units are going to do next turn, what actions and in what order they take them in.
DUST warfare has another take on tactical interation .(Written by Andy Chambers ,and Alessio Cavatore)

I was just pointing out that there alternatives to overwatch...

[Haravikk]

I was just pointing out that there alternatives to overwatch...

Oh I know, but Overwatch was the rule we had ages ago and I always lamented the loss of. I certainly wouldn't mind seeing other types of order if they were to go that way, but Overwatch or something functionally similar is something 40k could really benefit from.

Anyway, it's a bit off track, I only really raised it since we were talking about to-Hit modifiers