PDA

View Full Version : Ap ?



Griffin
21-12-2006, 12:43
Hi good People, i have a quick question.

Why do you hate AP ? And more importantly what would be a more efficent system that fits into the current framework of the rules. Allso how did AP work in 2nd Edition ?

Please no flaming in this thread and no Bashing of any kind. I sincerely want to see what people's oppinion's are since those old curmudgeons :D from 2nd always say that AP is the worst thing ever.

So let the discussion commence, oh and keep cries of :cheese: to minimum for whatever reason. I like cheddar coincidentally so - Begin.

Gutlord Grom
21-12-2006, 12:54
Because, they don't have enough weapons to kill Marines.
Thats what the AP hater arguement boils down. They don't like that their weapons cannot kill Marines as much as they like.

Megalodon01
21-12-2006, 12:54
Specifically, I dislike the fact that unless you play MEQ then you essentially have no armor that works against too many weapons in the game.

I will say on one hand the AP system is efficient from a speed of play point of view. However, I prefer an armor save modifier system similar to WFB. although I would account for improved technology by beginning with a -1 modifier at S5 or S6.

xibo
21-12-2006, 13:12
It works with armour save modifiers, like it once worker 10 years or so ago...
AP system sucks, because for example a missile kills off a space marine without giving him the slightest chance of surviving his 'wound', while a terminator doesn't even care if it's been a missile or a brick he got hit with...

ASM example: a boltergun gives you plus 2 AS. Thus shooting a guardsman with a bolter leaves him with a 7+ (=5+ +2) AS, therefore he has can't pass his AS. If you shoot a fire warrior he has 6+ ( =4+ +2 ) AS against a boltgun. Obviously the boltgun gets more effective by this, and more armour saves are (auto)failed against bolters. Autocannons/heavy bolters are even more killy, and so on...
... Terminators were hard to kill those days, because they made their armour saves with the SUM of 2d6... Therefore a terminator ( 3+AS) hit by a bolter could do a 5+ Save with 2D6... or 6+ with 2D6 against an heavy boltgun and so on, and iirc still had an armour save against lascannons.

VenrableOne
21-12-2006, 13:22
Hi good People, i have a quick question.

Why do you hate AP ? And more importantly what would be a more efficent system that fits into the current framework of the rules. Allso how did AP work in 2nd Edition ?

Please no flaming in this thread and no Bashing of any kind. I sincerely want to see what people's oppinion's are since those old curmudgeons :D from 2nd always say that AP is the worst thing ever.

So let the discussion commence, oh and keep cries of :cheese: to minimum for whatever reason. I like cheddar coincidentally so - Begin.

Why don't you just read this thread and this thread. They show both sides of the debate.

Rlyehable
21-12-2006, 13:23
I like the AP system. It is quick, effecient, and easy to understand.

However, I too, think that more models should get a save. I was hoping that 4th edition would change it slightly so that if AP is lower than the save, the model hit would get no save. That way all those models with the, currently useless, 5+ save would get a save.

I like it enough that I think it should be brought into the close combat system as well. Close combat weapons are too much an all-or-nothing thing.

Nehcrum
21-12-2006, 13:39
The shooting in 40K differs too much from WHFB shooting, so that just straight up strength affecting armor doesn't work.
If so, it would mean that light AT-guns like autocannons will also be highly effective anti-elite guns.

Keeping the separate strength and AP is necessary with the current system.
But I'd like to see a change to the AP-system. So that the AP-value gives a modifier to the armor save, rather than the current all-out-ignore or nothing.

Currently, shots from a weapon with good AP (4) means it penetrates most infantry armor with ease, just blows right through it. But if it hits someone in power armor, those same penetrating shots just gets stopped dead by armor suddenly.

The current system favors 3+ save armies too much.


The problem, as always in these circumstances, is that to change it, it will require massive work in replacing the current system and exhanging old weapons into new ones and rewriting codexes and so forth.

ObiWayneKenobi
21-12-2006, 13:48
The current system favors 3+ save armies too much.

This about sums it up. In 2nd edition, Marines were still tough as nails but you couldn't stand there and take a hail of fire... you needed to be crafty. The current version seems to lead to scenarios where the MEQs are all big and bad against small arms, but run and hide like little girls when faced with las/plas.

Also, returning to ASM (armor save modifiers) would see a reduction in the amount of las/plas squads that everyone and their mother seems to take; in fact, the proliferation of las/plas has come out only because of the AP system. Back in the days of ASM you would take more varied weaponry in a squad and/or weapons that made more sense (face it, plasma is supposed to be rare in the fluff due to the intricacies of "appeasing its Machine Spirit" and the overheating, which if I recall was only for Chaos SM anyways due to it not being perfected in the Crusade/Heresy days)

I will admit, however, that a new ASM system could not use the 2nd edition/WHFB approach as it would make Tau completely dominant (S5 = -2 save, so pulse fire would totally obliterate Marines), but I would prefer ASM to AP any day of the week.

Minister
21-12-2006, 14:00
The thought occurs that the main problem was armour save modifiers opening at S4 for most weapons, meaning that most of the time a Marine is saving on 4+ (bolter fire, for example). Start it at S5 giving -1 (with some of the more specialist weapons having an additional modifier) and it works much nicer.

Griffin
21-12-2006, 14:38
Did marines allso use 2d6 to determine armour back then ?

gLOBS
21-12-2006, 14:38
What I came up with trying to solve this is a new ap type system. This generalizes the weapons into better categories for what the weapons aredesigned for and breaks up the whole AP3, AP5 stigma of weapons. Granted with how this changes the save system some units should go up in price due to an increase of survival. Some weapons on my list have been pushed up a grade due to certain weapons practical uses.

Small Arms (Str 6 or less, AP 4,5,6) - Always allows a base save -Can only glance vehicles.
Bolters, Pulse rifles, Multilasers, Barbed Stranglers, Vibrocannons, Heavy Bolters, Heavy Flamers, Mortors, Venom Cannons, Inferno Cannons, Shuricannons, Whirlwind, Gauss Blaster, Assault Cannon, Big Shoota, Shredder, Railgun Submunition.

Anti Infantry (Str 8 or less AP 2,3,4,5,6)-Does not allow base save -Can only glance vehicles.
Autocannons, Starcannons, Missile Pods, Warp Blast, Kai Gun, Plasma Guns, Acid Spore Mines, Holy Hand Grenades, , Vespid Neural Blaster, Battle Cannons, Ion Cannons, Ork Rokkits, Staff Of Life, Disintegrater, Rail Rifle.

Anti Tank (Str 10 or less AP 1,2,3,4,5,6) -Does not allow base save -Can pen vehicles.
(Rail Gun, Meltagun, Earthshaker, Bright Lance, Heavy Gauss Cannon, Fusion Guns, Firepikes, Lascannons, Exorcist Launcher, ZZap Guns, Particle Whip, Dark Lance.

Griffin
21-12-2006, 14:40
Hmmm that seems like a interesting way of doing it.

bob syko
21-12-2006, 15:15
I like AP myself. It means I don't have to roll all those dice when my orks are shot at. It actually feels odd playing against guard. Someone actually had to remind me once about making my saves because I was so used to having none.

Minister
21-12-2006, 15:21
The other alternative is, of course, to use the system from lots of other games including LotR: armour adds to toughness (defense, whatever).

Smokedog
21-12-2006, 15:30
What I came up with trying to solve this is a new ap type system. This generalizes the weapons into better categories for what the weapons aredesigned for and breaks up the whole AP3, AP5 stigma of weapons. Granted with how this changes the save system some units should go up in price due to an increase of survival. Some weapons on my list have been pushed up a grade due to certain weapons practical uses.

Small Arms (Str 6 or less, AP 4,5,6) - Always allows a base save -Can only glance vehicles.
Bolters, Pulse rifles, Multilasers, Barbed Stranglers, Vibrocannons, Heavy Bolters, Heavy Flamers, Mortors, Venom Cannons, Inferno Cannons, Shuricannons, Whirlwind, Gauss Blaster, Assault Cannon, Big Shoota, Shredder, Railgun Submunition.

Anti Infantry (Str 8 or less AP 2,3,4,5,6)-Does not allow base save -Can only glance vehicles.
Autocannons, Starcannons, Missile Pods, Warp Blast, Kai Gun, Plasma Guns, Acid Spore Mines, Holy Hand Grenades, , Vespid Neural Blaster, Battle Cannons, Ion Cannons, Ork Rokkits, Staff Of Life, Disintegrater, Rail Rifle.

Anti Tank (Str 10 or less AP 1,2,3,4,5,6) -Does not allow base save -Can pen vehicles.
(Rail Gun, Meltagun, Earthshaker, Bright Lance, Heavy Gauss Cannon, Fusion Guns, Firepikes, Lascannons, Exorcist Launcher, ZZap Guns, Particle Whip, Dark Lance.

thats all great and all but I would like to think that a bright lance (ST8) could penetrate a vehicle.....

...you will see my solution when I finish my ruleset for 40K... :P

electricblooz
21-12-2006, 15:39
I disagree that Heavy Bolters, Flamers, and certainly the Inferno Cannon should count as small arms. But I do agree that a anti-personel/anti-vehicle category needs to be added.

Everyone rants about the break across 3+ to 4+ armor saves (and really it's the break between 4+ and 5+ where you see it), but I think the real issue is that clearly dedicated anti-vehicular weapons are just as good at killing individual troopers (or better) as dedicated anti-personel weapons. Thus, anti-vehicular weapons become the jack of all trades and are taken with a much greater frequency than they realistically "should" be taken if the army actually existed.

In part, I think this comes from the FPS phenomenon that encourages people to believe that it's actually easier to kill someone with a bazooka than with a spray of bullets (hint: it's not!).

I would suggest, rather than a major overhaul to the AP system (which actually represents reality better than any graduated ASM could - in reality if your armor is hit by a round capable of penetrating it, said armor will be penetrated, full stop) that we bring back a simple to hit modifier based on weapon purpose. Firing anti-personel at a vehicle? -1 to hit. Firing anti-vehicle at a person? -1 to hit. For weapons with mutliple fire modes, apply based on fire mode type. Template and blast weapons would not be affected (I think, but you could sway me on that). I also don't know how I would handle things like the Battle Cannon or Particle whip that don't really roll "to hit."

EarlGrey
21-12-2006, 15:45
I love the AP system, and I play Tyranids, Tau and Guard.
It really does seem to be people finding power armour too tough when it's supposed to be that tough. Why change the rules when you can just change your tactics?

hiveminion
21-12-2006, 15:56
Though I understand why some people complain about the unrealistic occurences that the AP-system brings (artificer armour withstanding a krak missile just as easily as a Grot's blasta round), I'm fine with it. It's quick and efficient. Modifiers just slow the game down even further (and mixed armour becomes a nightmare).

The argument that there are not enough Marine-busting weapons (ie, AP3/2/1) is just stupid. WHY would you need AP3 to kill a Marine? A Heavy Bolter will arguably kill just as many Marines as a Lascannon in the shooting fase. The more armour saves you force your opponent to make, increases the chance of him failing a save. That is why a lot of AP4> weapons fire multiple shots, or use templates/blast markers.

gLOBS
21-12-2006, 16:03
Thing is I put heavy bolters as Small Arms due to if they were shot at Sapce Marines they would nto get a save and seems wrong.


thats all great and all but I would like to think that a bright lance (ST8) could penetrate a vehicle.....

...you will see my solution when I finish my ruleset for 40K... :P

Well if you actually read into what weapons I inlcuded ineach I said some weapons would be upgraded as such and if you lokk I have bundled Lances into atni-vehicular.

Henshini
21-12-2006, 16:05
You could just take existing AP values and equate them to save modifiers:
AP - 6 5 4 3 2 1
Sv +1 - -1 -2 -3 -4 -5

Or something similar.

senban
21-12-2006, 16:06
Hi good People, i have a quick question.

Why do you hate AP ? And more importantly what would be a more efficent system that fits into the current framework of the rules. Allso how did AP work in 2nd Edition ?

Please no flaming in this thread and no Bashing of any kind. I sincerely want to see what people's oppinion's are since those old curmudgeons :D from 2nd always say that AP is the worst thing ever.

So let the discussion commence, oh and keep cries of :cheese: to minimum for whatever reason. I like cheddar coincidentally so - Begin.

The problem isn't AP vs ASM, the problem is the whole saving throw system. I mean seriously, roll to wound first, then if a wound is caused roll to see if it goes through armour, that seems a bit backasswards to begin with, then there's the fact that the damage system in general only registers two states: alive and dead, there is no: riddled with bullets crying and swearing this turn, but might get up and start furiously killing next turn or might just bleed quietly to death.
Other problems: an average human hit by a weapon of average power has a 50% chance of suffering a wound and being killed or otherwise incapacitated. I would contend for arguments sake that if I shot you with a round from an M16, the chances of you suffering a severe injury would be greater than 50%.
Without recourse to practical experience I would also imagine that using it as a firearm would be more effective than using it as a bat, something that is also not simulated in the game.
Long and short, I think 4th ed does a pretty decent job for something that has been evolving out of some wierd 70's nonsense designed to work with your left over D&D figurines.

EarlGrey
21-12-2006, 16:13
I mean seriously, roll to wound first, then if a wound is caused roll to see if it goes through armour, that seems a bit backasswards to begin with.

It makes sense in that you roll to hit with your guns, then you roll to see if your bullets wound, then you pass the dice to your oppenent and let him/her save. Saves passing dice back and forth. :)

Smokedog
21-12-2006, 16:13
@Henshini How can you gain armour by somone shooting at you?

@gLOBS - Whoops! didnt see that bit, the ST8 heading is a bit misleading though...

Nehcrum
21-12-2006, 16:46
Though I understand why some people complain about the unrealistic occurences that the AP-system brings (artificer armour withstanding a krak missile just as easily as a Grot's blasta round), I'm fine with it. It's quick and efficient. Modifiers just slow the game down even further (and mixed armour becomes a nightmare).

The argument that there are not enough Marine-busting weapons (ie, AP3/2/1) is just stupid. WHY would you need AP3 to kill a Marine? A Heavy Bolter will arguably kill just as many Marines as a Lascannon in the shooting fase. The more armour saves you force your opponent to make, increases the chance of him failing a save. That is why a lot of AP4> weapons fire multiple shots, or use templates/blast markers.
Modifiers don't slow it down very much unless you are really bad at math....

While a heavy bolter can kill as many marines as a lascannon, see what a heavy bolter will do to fire warriors that gets no save at all.

And even the fact that a AT weapon is about as effective as a anti-infantry weapon like a heavy bolter, says that marine armour is really ******* tough.


Thing is, if we start looking at weapons AP, some things become clear.
5+ armor is near useless in a firefight, most standard small arms smash right through it, bolters, gauss flayers, shuricats, pulse rifles and so forth.
Next is the 4+ armor, which saves against the standard infantry small arms. But most heavier anti-infantry weapons go right through it. Heavy bolter, asscannon, whirlwind, railgun submunition, heavy flamer, and so on.
Things that do lots of wounds and kills all infantry (except powerarmor and terminator armor) outright.

Then there is the 3+ armor. How many AP3 weapons are there? Krak-missiles...single shot.
Ion cannon, 3 shots but a very specialised weapon.
Reaper launcher, double shot, and a dedicated anti-MEQ weapon.
Then there is the earthshaker and battle-cannon, but they are both heavy ordnance.
Is AP3 the most un-common AP?

For the last step, 2+ armor, there are more weapons. Since most AT-weapons are either AP2 or AP1. Lascannons, plasma, brightlances, melta, starcannon.....with few exceptions tho, most guns in this class is not multi-shot....even the poor starcannon got the nerf because of this.


5+ and 6+ armor only works in HtH and against a few weapons, mostly light blast weapons. 4+ works against small arms but not against anti-infantry heavy weapons.
3+ is the big step, because there, all the anti-infantry weapons stop working properly, they can't penetrate.
2+ is just an improved 3+, higher chances of surviving, and some small improvements in which weapons it saves against...krak missiles and IG ordnance being the main ones....

I'm not saying marines should be as weak as everyone else, they are paying a bit for their toughness. But they get saves where others do not, it makes a BIG difference. If instead of having the all-or-nothing, you put in a armor save modifier, they would still benefit from their improved armor, but not in the way that they do now, that they are the only ones that stand up to heavy bolter fire while everyone else dies in droves.

EarlGrey
21-12-2006, 16:53
What would become a problem is that weapons with a current AP value of 5 would need a -2 save modifier to represent them punching through 5+ armour. A heavy bolter would then have to have a save modifier of -3, right? So Marines would have a 6+ save for Heavy bolters and 5+ against bolters?
The problem with save modifiers is that we need a much greater range of numbers to make them work, or more complicated rules for armour types. For a six sided dice game, AP works very well in representing armour and penetration.

Curufew
21-12-2006, 16:57
My ASM table

Strength 1 to 4 weapon no armour save modifiers
Strength 5 and 6: -1 armour save modifiers
Strength 7 and 8: -2 armour save modifiers
Strength 9 and 10: -3 armour save modifiers

Nehcrum
21-12-2006, 17:26
My ASM table

Strength 1 to 4 weapon no armour save modifiers
Strength 5 and 6: -1 armour save modifiers
Strength 7 and 8: -2 armour save modifiers
Strength 9 and 10: -3 armour save modifiers
Problem with that is that AT guns become great anti-elite guns as well.
Which means that multi-shot light AT guns becomes the new great hit.
The Auto-cannon will become better at killing marines than the heavy bolter....

No, the best thing is to keep the S and AP values as two separate values, instead of making it a straight modifier off of S. But change the AP value from the all-or-nothing, into a save modifier (that is unaffected of the actual S of the weapon, thereby allowing a wider range of weapons).


What would become a problem is that weapons with a current AP value of 5 would need a -2 save modifier to represent them punching through 5+ armour. A heavy bolter would then have to have a save modifier of -3, right? So Marines would have a 6+ save for Heavy bolters and 5+ against bolters?
The problem with save modifiers is that we need a much greater range of numbers to make them work, or more complicated rules for armour types. For a six sided dice game, AP works very well in representing armour and penetration.
If you make it into a save modifier instead of straight up penetration, you don't have to follow the current rules to the letter.

Making the current AP5 weapons into a -1 modifier. Making orks and jungle-fighter IG have no save, and normal card-board-flakvest IG have a measly 6+ save to small arms.

The AP4 weapons, will be -2, so IG and guardians will get chewed up without a save, while the 4+ "standard armor" guys will get a 6+. MEQS get a 5+, makes them feel a bit like IG when heavy bolters are firing at them....

The AP3 (-3 save) krak missiles will kill all but power armor infantry outright, and the marines will get a lucky 6+ chance to survive. Terminators gets a 5+ save, altho they would anyway, due to having a inv save.



There are other ways, and if the system changes, there is really no reason to stick to the current linear system, it could be modified in other ways....

ImBiginKorea
21-12-2006, 17:40
I think the whole idea of ASM is overily complicated and would require too much change for the game.

1. Ever gun in every army would have to be given different stats, or classified as whatever system your using.

2. Weapons require more than strength to break armor.
EX: Tau plasma is only Str 6, but its a big gooey glob of super heated stuff that burns through armor.
EX: Mid strength weapons (6-8) would become easily abusable, Autocannons, Missile Pods, etc... fire multiple rounds of high strength projectiles, thus negating what ever ASM you can come up with.

The simple fact is that 40k is very different from WFB, and there is A LOT of shooting when you compare the two. If your tired of your IG being shot to hell by bolters and then it sucks, but your getting shot by a guy more than double your points. Also there is alot of non-meqs armies out there; IG, Tau, Nids, Orc, Eldar, Dark Eldar. Different troops require different strategies thats all it is.

--Korea

VenrableOne
21-12-2006, 19:44
Why do you hate AP ?

Lets look at some of the given reasons.


Because, they don't have enough weapons to kill Marines.

It really does seem to be people finding power armour too tough when it's supposed to be that tough. Why change the rules when you can just change your tactics?

Both wrong.


Modifiers just slow the game down even further.

I think the whole idea of ASM is overily complicated and would require too much change for the game.

Do people really find subtracting single digits that complicated? If they do, how are we to trust them with an army list?

Oh well, the real reason. Its all about game balance.

Lets use a hypothetical example. We'll take two weapons that have the same stats except for strength and ap. Which weapon is more lethal? S4/AP3 or S6/AP4 :confused:

S4/AP3 vs Guardsman 66.7% chance to kill
S6/AP4 vs Guardsman 100% chance to kill

S4/AP3 vs MEQ 50% chance to kill
S6/AP4 vs MEQ 27.8% chance to kill

:wtf:

You might have noticed that kill rates are wildly inconsistent. This is the one reason people ask for ASMs. They work in a consistent fashion and are balanced.

Unless things are applied equally you won't achieve this but who am I to argue against the enemies of balance.

If you think AP is balanced, please, go ahead and prove it. Don't tell me a lot of bovine stuff. Give me examples, state your case with facts.


The problem with save modifiers is that we need a much greater range of numbers to make them work, or more complicated rules for armour types. For a six sided dice game, AP works very well in representing armour and penetration.

I'll agree with you here. The D6 is not the best option for using ASMs. They work much better with a greater number of variables; D10 or D12.

hiveminion
21-12-2006, 20:23
Do people really find subtracting single digits that complicated? If they do, how are we to trust them with an army list?




No, of course not. It is the rules mechanic that replaces the AP system. Something less complicated than the AP system is impossible. It also speeds the game up considerably. If Gaunts were constantly allowed to take armour saves a game involving them would take all day.

If you introduce modifiers just for strength, then the only weapons used will be (surprise, surprise) high strength ones. Specialized weapons with low strength but high AP will be neglected. AP adds another characteristic to a weapon, therefore increasing the variety possible.

VenrableOne
21-12-2006, 21:22
No, of course not. It is the rules mechanic that replaces the AP system. Something less complicated than the AP system is impossible. It also speeds the game up considerably. If Gaunts were constantly allowed to take armour saves a game involving them would take all day.

No AP or modifiers would be the simplest, least complicated system. Of course you would drastically cut down on the number of weapon variations we could have. That would get a little boring.


If you introduce modifiers just for strength, then the only weapons used will be (surprise, surprise) high strength ones.

Why does everyone assume it has to based on strength. It should be based on what the weapons function is.


Specialized weapons with low strength but high AP will be neglected. AP adds another characteristic to a weapon, therefore increasing the variety possible.

As opposed to now where AP is the determining factor.

The easiest solution is to make things work consistently. If each weapon is one step up from the previous one then it becomes a choice of points value. Do I want the to pay the higher cost for a better weapon or save some points and use a cheaper, less effective alternative?

I would make the cost difference much greater between weapons.

ImBiginKorea
21-12-2006, 21:27
Lets use a hypothetical example. We'll take two weapons that have the same stats except for strength and ap. Which weapon is more lethal? S4/AP3 or S6/AP4 :confused:

S4/AP3 vs Guardsman 66.7% chance to kill
S6/AP4 vs Guardsman 100% chance to kill

S4/AP3 vs MEQ 50% chance to kill
S6/AP4 vs MEQ 27.8% chance to kill

:wtf:

You might have noticed that kill rates are wildly inconsistent. This is the one reason people ask for ASMs. They work in a consistent fashion and are balanced.



You just proved the point for AP, specialization of weapons. Every weapon has its use against different targets. If you get rid of the AP system (specialization of weapons) then whats the point of taking any weapons other than the highest RoF combined with strength? AP encourages the player to plan a well balanced list for whatever army they face. But if we ever decide to get rid of AP, then i'll just equip all of my battlesuits with twin-linked missile pods(str 7, assault 2), lets see who wins that war.

--Korea

VenrableOne
21-12-2006, 21:35
You just proved the point for AP, specialization of weapons. Every weapon has its use against different targets. If you get rid of the AP system (specialization of weapons) then whats the point of taking any weapons other than the highest RoF combined with strength? AP encourages the player to plan a well balanced list for whatever army they face. But if we ever decide to get rid of AP, then i'll just equip all of my battlesuits with twin-linked missile pods(str 7, assault 2), lets see who wins that war.

You completely missed the point of what I was saying.:( Let me rephrase it.

How do you balance the points cost of weapons when they work in a completely inconsistent way?

slasher
21-12-2006, 21:41
How about the wepon stats looking like this:
Type Range Strength AT AP
eg Bolt Gun- Rapid fire 24' 4 4 -1
Shurican Cat Assault 2 12' 4 3 -1
Death Spinner Assault 2 12' 6 - -2/3

where AT is an anti-tank/armour value, and AP is an anti-personel value. With AT working like the current S value for working out if a vehicles armour is penatrated but AP being a ASM. This would mean a weapon like a bolt gun can damage vehicles more easily than say a shurican cat or death spinner. (Background fluff reasons)

Down side to this is all codecii become invalid :(

Just an Idea

ImBiginKorea
21-12-2006, 21:50
How do you balance the points cost of weapons when they work in a completely inconsistent way?

All you can do is playtest it, and change it as the game/codex/editions change. If we base strength of weaponry on sliding scale of points only (which is what I think your trying to say), then wouldn't all of the armies be able to become "shooty armies"? And if so whats the point of picking one over the other.

--Korea

Snotteef
21-12-2006, 22:18
S4/AP3 vs Guardsman 66.7% chance to kill
S6/AP4 vs Guardsman 100% chance to kill


You must be using some crazy math that I've never encountered, because 1's always fail in 40k, so no standard weapon (by standard, I mean one which rolls to hit and to wound) can EVER have a 100% chance to kill something. :p It's more like 83%.

I like AP better than ASM. I don't play marines and I am not a marine fanboy, but marines are supposed to be incredibly tough and power armor is supposed to be amazing (fluffwise). In 2nd edition power armor was crap. Nearly everything reduced it to 4+ and many weapons (like shuricats) made it even worse. Despite the fact that I am NOT a marine player, I want them to be able to weather a hail of fire and keep coming.

That is really my main reason. If you can preserve the survivability of armored troops with an ASM system, then go for it.

I would only advocate a return of ASM's if most basic weapons did not have a modifier. Basically, I would want:

AP 5/6 = no modifier
AP 4 = -1
AP 3 = -2
AP 2 = -3
AP 1 = -4

Everyone has differing opinions and usually for good reasons, but this is the best representation for MY vision of the game.

Kriegsherr
21-12-2006, 22:25
You could just take existing AP values and equate them to save modifiers:
AP - 6 5 4 3 2 1
Sv +1 - -1 -2 -3 -4 -5

Or something similar.

Very good idea.... as long as a 1 would be always a failed armour save (say no to invincible terminators ;)), This is more or less what I wanted to suggest.

Grubnar
21-12-2006, 23:04
Did marines allso use 2d6 to determine armour back then ?

Oly Tactical Dreadnought Armor IIRC, that is Terminators.

VenrableOne
21-12-2006, 23:39
where AT is an anti-tank/armour value, and AP is an anti-personel value.

I have seen this idea before. I like it as it gives a nice division between weapons.


Down side to this is all codecii become invalid :(

Which will happen next edition anyways. Most likely anyways.


All you can do is playtest it, and change it as the game/codex/editions change.

All right lets play test.

Lets say the play testers give the S4/AP3 a cost of 10 points based on how effective it is against marines. However, the group testing it against guardsman only gives it a value of 5 points.

Then the play testers try the the S6/AP4 weapon. Now the marine test group only thinks it should have a points cost of 5 while the guardsman testers say it should be worth 10 points.

The question is; which value makes it into the codex?


You must be using some crazy math that I've never encountered, because 1's always fail in 40k, so no standard weapon (by standard, I mean one which rolls to hit and to wound) can EVER have a 100% chance to kill something. :p It's more like 83%.

If you like I could give you the anal retentive version that has the BS from 1 to 6 worked out with the above odds. :eyebrows: Take it as these represent hits.


That is really my main reason. If you can preserve the survivability of armored troops with an ASM system, then go for it.

I have seen a D12 system that was almost a direct translation of current saves and AP. Marines lived up to their background far better with it than they do now.

How did it go...? I think you doubled the basic saves value and added one to it. A marine saves 4 out of 6 times so would therefore save 9 (8 +1) out of 12 times (a 4 on a D12). Then AP was a direct translation. AP6 = -1, AP5 = -2, etc. Marines still saved 25% of the time against AP1 weapons.

It looked good but thats a different subject all together.


I would only advocate a return of ASM's if most basic weapons did not have a modifier.

This was one of the problems 2nd had, everything had a mod. See I'll admit 2nd had some problems.

Smokedog
21-12-2006, 23:40
I would only advocate a return of ASM's if most basic weapons did not have a modifier. Basically, I would want:

AP 5/6 = no modifier
AP 4 = -1
AP 3 = -2
AP 2 = -3
AP 1 = -4

Everyone has differing opinions and usually for good reasons, but this is the best representation for MY vision of the game.

You could turn it on its head and say that on the roll to hit, what score you get to hit means you have a higher probability to ignore armour. IT would work like this for AP6, on a 6+ You ignore 6+ armour. if hit on anything less then you still get a save.

Summary:
AP6 6: need to roll 6+ to hit to ignore armour save of 6
AP5 5: need to roll 5+ to hit to ignore armour save of 5+
AP4 4: need to roll 4+ to hit to ignore armour save of 4+
AP3 3: need to roll 3+ to hit to ignore armour save of 3+
AP2 2: need to roll 2+ to hit to ignore armour save of 2+
AP1 1: need to roll 1+ to hit to ignore armour save of 1+ (auto pen)

just thought of it, cant see any imediate flaws... let me know

Gensuke626
22-12-2006, 00:48
What I came up with trying to solve this is a new ap type system. This generalizes the weapons into better categories for what the weapons aredesigned for and breaks up the whole AP3, AP5 stigma of weapons. Granted with how this changes the save system some units should go up in price due to an increase of survival. Some weapons on my list have been pushed up a grade due to certain weapons practical uses.

Small Arms (Str 6 or less, AP 4,5,6) - Always allows a base save -Can only glance vehicles.
Bolters, Pulse rifles, Multilasers, Barbed Stranglers, Vibrocannons, Heavy Bolters, Heavy Flamers, Mortors, Venom Cannons, Inferno Cannons, Shuricannons, Whirlwind, Gauss Blaster, Assault Cannon, Big Shoota, Shredder, Railgun Submunition.

Anti Infantry (Str 8 or less AP 2,3,4,5,6)-Does not allow base save -Can only glance vehicles.
Autocannons, Starcannons, Missile Pods, Warp Blast, Kai Gun, Plasma Guns, Acid Spore Mines, Holy Hand Grenades, , Vespid Neural Blaster, Battle Cannons, Ion Cannons, Ork Rokkits, Staff Of Life, Disintegrater, Rail Rifle.

Anti Tank (Str 10 or less AP 1,2,3,4,5,6) -Does not allow base save -Can pen vehicles.
(Rail Gun, Meltagun, Earthshaker, Bright Lance, Heavy Gauss Cannon, Fusion Guns, Firepikes, Lascannons, Exorcist Launcher, ZZap Guns, Particle Whip, Dark Lance.

Ok...Explain to me why Ork Rokkits are Anti Infantry. I mean they're the only squad upgrade for my Tankbusta Boyz.

Also while I like that you're thinking outside of the box, your system fails to account for lighter vehicles. Surely you don't think that Sentinels and Warwalkers will nearly shrug off hits from an Autocannon, especially an Autocannon in the hands of a Tank Hunter. As it stands, it can only glance vehicles, and I know that my friends currently use their Autocannons for light vehicle hunting.

You also forgot Krak and Frag missiles. Frag obviously would be Small arms by your categorization, despite the fact that the bloody things are designed to shred light infantry. Krak, based on where you put the Rokkit (Far superior to Oomie Krak Missiles!) would go into Anti infantry, despite the fact that it's obviously designed to hunt tanks. It might not be the tank killer that Las Cannons and Rail Guns offer, but I've seen Krak Missiles take down monoliths with luck and blow apart Rhinos and Chimeras with Ease...not to mention Sentinels and War walkers.

I'd give your system a 5/10. Great start, but it needs alot of work.

Gensuke626
22-12-2006, 01:06
You could turn it on its head and say that on the roll to hit, what score you get to hit means you have a higher probability to ignore armour. IT would work like this for AP6, on a 6+ You ignore 6+ armour. if hit on anything less then you still get a save.

Summary:
AP6 6: need to roll 6+ to hit to ignore armour save of 6
AP5 5: need to roll 5+ to hit to ignore armour save of 5+
AP4 4: need to roll 4+ to hit to ignore armour save of 4+
AP3 3: need to roll 3+ to hit to ignore armour save of 3+
AP2 2: need to roll 2+ to hit to ignore armour save of 2+
AP1 1: need to roll 1+ to hit to ignore armour save of 1+ (auto pen)

just thought of it, cant see any imediate flaws... let me know

The biggest flaw I see with this is that it favors certain characters and troop types. Example-
Guided unit of Dark Reapers. If you take an Exarch, he can hit on a 2+, but if he has an EML or a Reaper launcher then you don't want to roll a 2, because the enemy gets a save vs the shot. It's much more efficient to just take 5 reapers and sit them with a farseer, that way all of their shots will ignore armor and they can reroll misses.

The same logic is applied to why a looted Land Raider Crusader can be deadly in the hands of Orks. Twinlinked Assault Cannon-4 shots, rends on a 6, reroll any dice that come up 1-4. You end up with more rending hits since mathematically half of your successful hits will come up 6.

I can't apply the logic smoothly across all armies, as not every army allows rerolls, but for example, anyorky shooting will always get their AP value except for shootas and sluggas (Correct me if I missed any other orky ap6 guns) if they hit.

You also need to work out a system for determining AP for Flamers, Barrage Weapons, and Ordnance.

Smokedog
22-12-2006, 01:15
Yep, i knew there would be flaws.. before i go to sleep though..

Eldar: hitting on a 2 by this definition means they can roll to save, this is a flaw, but on this scale 2 is barely hitting someone, and 6 is a critical hit. Not sure how to get round the issue though.... yet

Orks: at the moment get AP automatically, and making it hitting on 5 or sixes not such a big issue, is it?? Its not exactly changing much...

Gensuke626
22-12-2006, 01:57
Yep, i knew there would be flaws.. before i go to sleep though..

Eldar: hitting on a 2 by this definition means they can roll to save, this is a flaw, but on this scale 2 is barely hitting someone, and 6 is a critical hit. Not sure how to get round the issue though.... yet

Orks: at the moment get AP automatically, and making it hitting on 5 or sixes not such a big issue, is it?? Its not exactly changing much...

No it's not...but it's food for thought and I was coming down off of a...err...well...I get these streams of thought that are hard to stop and they usually mean I fill my posts with unnessecary words...like this explanation.

anywho...Well...I've been thinking...instead...maybe you could make it like glancing/penetrating...so if you roll the minimum you need to hit you...no wait...that won't be fair for orks...hmm....

Snotteef
22-12-2006, 02:42
If you like I could give you the anal retentive version that has the BS from 1 to 6 worked out with the above odds. Take it as these represent hits.


I was taking it as representing hits. You still need to roll to wound and a '1' to wound always fails, hence `83% instead of 100%.

S6/AP4 simply does NOT kill guardsman 100% of the time. I you are going to present statistics in order to make a point, I think it is important that those statistics be correct (or at least very close); your written statistics have a 17% error margin. Makes a big difference.

VenrableOne
22-12-2006, 02:58
I was taking it as representing hits. You still need to roll to wound and a '1' to wound always fails, hence `83% instead of 100%.

S6/AP4 simply does NOT kill guardsman 100% of the time. I you are going to present statistics in order to make a point, I think it is important that those statistics be correct (or at least very close); your written statistics have a 17% error margin. Makes a big difference.

Instant death. It does kill 100% of the time.

azimaith
22-12-2006, 03:36
Hi good People, i have a quick question.

Why do you hate AP ? And more importantly what would be a more efficent system that fits into the current framework of the rules. Allso how did AP work in 2nd Edition ?

Please no flaming in this thread and no Bashing of any kind. I sincerely want to see what people's oppinion's are since those old curmudgeons :D from 2nd always say that AP is the worst thing ever.

So let the discussion commence, oh and keep cries of :cheese: to minimum for whatever reason. I like cheddar coincidentally so - Begin.

People dislike AP because its very all or nothing.
If you have a 5+ save you may as well not bother getting dice out for rolling saves at all, practically every weapon penetrates them.

It means close combat is all about power weapons or buckets and buckets of attacks. A squad of marines with chainswords won't do so well against a squad of guardsmen with a powerfist in it and carapace.

Finally, AP doesn't scale. If I shoot a marine with an autocannon its the same as shooting him with a laspistol in terms of armor. Shouldn't an autocannon do more to marine armor than a laspistol does?

Some people advocate an Armor save modifier that used to be in the game. I can understand why they removed it, to put it simply practically no one got a save then except marines, and that was often on a 5+ or worse thus players got saves on 2d6's for certain units and the like. It could work if everyone had much lower saves, or even negative saves in some cases.

The best idea I heard was in a thread a while back when units had a "Armor Protective Value" and an "Armor Value." Armor protective value indicated how much armor you wore and thus your armor save. Armor value indicated how tough it was to penetrate. Thus a guardsman could have a 4+/5+ save. You would need an AP4 weapon to deny the guardsman his 5+ sve. But all his saves would still be on a 5+. This allows for finer tuning of armor saves. Thus units like guard or orks might actually *get* armor saves for once.

Snotteef
22-12-2006, 03:49
Instant death. It does kill 100% of the time

Incorrect. You can check it in the rulebook yourself. Instant death kills a model regardless of how many wounds it has AFTER a SUCCESSFUL wound roll. If you roll a 1 to wound with a weapon that has strength double the target's toughness, the target lives.

VenrableOne
22-12-2006, 04:07
Incorrect. You can check it in the rulebook yourself. Instant death kills a model regardless of how many wounds it has AFTER a SUCCESSFUL wound roll. If you roll a 1 to wound with a weapon that has strength double the target's toughness, the target lives.

Page 27 of the rule book "IF a creature...". I stand corrected. It should be 83%.

However, that doesn't change the fact that AP works in an inconsistent fashion.

gLOBS
22-12-2006, 06:06
Ok...Explain to me why Ork Rokkits are Anti Infantry. I mean they're the only squad upgrade for my Tankbusta Boyz.

Also while I like that you're thinking outside of the box, your system fails to account for lighter vehicles. Surely you don't think that Sentinels and Warwalkers will nearly shrug off hits from an Autocannon, especially an Autocannon in the hands of a Tank Hunter. As it stands, it can only glance vehicles, and I know that my friends currently use their Autocannons for light vehicle hunting.

You also forgot Krak and Frag missiles. Frag obviously would be Small arms by your categorization, despite the fact that the bloody things are designed to shred light infantry. Krak, based on where you put the Rokkit (Far superior to Oomie Krak Missiles!) would go into Anti infantry, despite the fact that it's obviously designed to hunt tanks. It might not be the tank killer that Las Cannons and Rail Guns offer, but I've seen Krak Missiles take down monoliths with luck and blow apart Rhinos and Chimeras with Ease...not to mention Sentinels and War walkers.

I'd give your system a 5/10. Great start, but it needs alot of work.

I agree with you on the rokkits and krak missiles but I entirely disagree with the frag missiles. The only models that generally do no get a save are gaunts and boyz, I mean even regular guardsmen get saves they do not shred infantry.

Well I would also allow models with tank hunters be able to take to pen vehicles reguardless of what weapons are used.

Small Arms (Str 6 or less, AP 4,5,6) - Always allows a base save -Can only glance vehicles.
Bolters, Pulse rifles, Multilasers, Barbed Stranglers, Vibrocannons, Heavy Bolters, Heavy Flamers, Mortors, Venom Cannons, Inferno Cannons, Shuricannons, Whirlwind, Gauss Blaster, Assault Cannon, Big Shoota, Shredder, Railgun Submunition, Frag Missiles.

Anti Infantry (Str 8 or less AP 2,3,4,5,6)-Does not allow base save -Can pen vehicles on a 6 to hit.
Autocannons, Starcannons, Missile Pods, Warp Blast, Kai Gun, Plasma Guns, Acid Spore Mines, Holy Hand Grenades, , Vespid Neural Blaster, Battle Cannons, Ion Cannons, Staff Of Life, Disintegrater, Rail Rifle.

Anti Tank (Str 10 or less AP 1,2,3,4,5,6) -Does not allow base save -Can pen vehicles.
(Rail Gun, Meltagun, Earthshaker, Bright Lance, Heavy Gauss Cannon, Fusion Guns, Firepikes, Lascannons, Exorcist Launcher, ZZap Guns, Particle Whip, Dark Lance, Ork Rokkits, Krak Missiles.