Librarium Online Forums banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Scourge Lord
Joined
·
1,638 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I've never been perfectly happy with the AP system in 40K. There are a few problems I've noticed that could use fixing:

1. Some armies might as well not have armor saves at all, since most standard rifles and pistols have AP5.
2. AP weaponry is all-or-nothing in the instance that an AP2 gun totally ignores 2+ armor, while AP3 guns get no benefit whatsoever.
3. AP has a very limited effect on the armor of vehicles. Only AP1 and AP- do anything, while other powerful weapons are lumped in with basic rifles and pistols.

Designing a single, sweeping change to cover all three issues has not been successful as of yet, so I've adopted an individual solution

Make all AP5 and AP6 weapons AP- unless a 6 is rolled to hit (that's a lucky shot/critical hit). AP5 and AP6 blast weapons count as AP- unless the model is under the hole in the center of the blast marker. Works for #1, but doesn't affect #2. Also has the side-effect of making anti-personnel weapons less effective against vehicles, which hasn't bothered me much.

AP is a fixed subtraction of armor save values. 6 - AP = the reduction in Sv. So if AP is the same as the model's Sv, that model gets a 6+ armor save. If the AP is better, no save allowed. If an AP3 gun wounds a model with Sv2+, that's a 5+ armor save and so on. Fixes problem #2, but due to the previous change, issue #1 is not affected.

So, combining these two changes, you get a chart like this which shows which armor save you get (I actually find it easier to just remember the rule):


As for #3, I'm thinking about something like this:
Compare AV - 9 with 6 - AP. If the modified AP (APm) value is greater than the modified AV (AVm) value, add +1 to armor penetration roll. If the APm is at least 2x the AVm, then add +2 to the armor penetration roll. And 4x the AVm would do +3 penetration. For example, AV10 modifies to a 1, and AP2 modifies to a 4. That's a +3 to the roll to penetrate or glance. Kind of a long-ish process, so here's a table for quicker implementation.



I'm looking for the best possible solutions when it comes to playing the game (and not necessarily the most elegant rules to write on the page). If you've got an idea for something that works better, or if you like what I've got so far, please let me know. Thanks for reading.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
370 Posts
Hi Krovin-Rezh.
The simplest way I could think of with dealing with weapon and armour interaction is to simulate real world interactions.
(Its very simple dont worry.)

Weapon are develped to inflict damage.
Armour is developed to prevent -reduce the amount of damage tranfered to the soft target behind it.

If we change all armour saves -value to ONE value type.
1 pip of save = 1 point of armour.
6+save =1 AR
5+ save = 2 AR
4+ save = 3AR
3+save = 4 AR
2+ save = 5 AR

And each point of inv add to this.
termi 2+ save 5 + inv= 7 AR

(Then modify for toughness?)

Vehicles simply use thier current AV value as AR value!

This way everything gets a armour value (AR) from 1 to 15...
All weapon use a revised Str value , to determine armour penetration value.(AP)

Then simply deduct the armour value AR from the weapons AP value to get the saving roll required.(Or the result on vehicle damage table.)

Eg a heavy Bolter AP 6 hits an IG trooper Ar 2, the IG trooper needs a 5+ to save(6-2=4)
The same heavy bolter hitting a SM AR4 , the SM gets a 3+ save .(6-4=2)

A multimelta AP 8(2d6 pen roll less than half range )hits a land raider AR 14.
8 + (2D6 roll)8 -16total AP
16-14=2, look the result up on the vehicle damage chart.(2= Crew stunned)

It would mean revising alot of things,(PV str and AR), but the basic concept is very straightforward and intuitive.
Proportional results with NO need for extra modifiers!:dance:

As Odbod my mekboy would say...'take da protectyness from da hittyness to find owt da hurtyness'

TTFN
Lanrak.
 

·
404: Title not found
Joined
·
2,845 Posts
while AP3 guns get no benefit whatsoever.
Other than ignoring power armour.

Which is quite some benefit.

I get what you're trying to say overall, that armies like Orks might as well not have any armour because lasguns are the only weapons which allow them their save anyway, but personally I have no problem with this system. If Orks weren't so easy to destroy, can you imagine what it'd be like facing them?

~ DiW
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
178 Posts
Other than ignoring power armour.

Which is quite some benefit.

I get what you're trying to say overall, that armies like Orks might as well not have any armour because lasguns are the only weapons which allow them their save anyway, but personally I have no problem with this system. If Orks weren't so easy to destroy, can you imagine what it'd be like facing them?

~ DiW
the actual problem is one of scaling and in short as your save heads to 2+ it exponentially increases in value over the values before it, this caused an inbalance problem because GW in their infinite wisdom didn't scale the benefit of armour in that fashion instead, they used an almost linear points system increase for the save.

why AP causes exponential change: against an AP 6 weapon a 2+ armour save person has a 16.6% chance of failing the save whilst a 5+ armour save guardsmen has a 66% chance of failing the save (so far its linear) but then against an AP 5 weapon the poor guardsmen gets no save but the terminator guy is still rocking that 16.6% chance to fail the save.

GW is trying to fix the problem by balancing the points differerntly for swarming type units (note: tyranid swarms).

i guess the goal of changing the AP system would be to in effect bring it into a linear system where there isn't a drastic increase per save point. In Warhammer Fantasy they use strength as an armour save modifier and AP as an additional modifier like an additional -1 on top of the strength mod and with that in mind i definitely like Krovin-Rezh's tables as they pretty much do just that and work in with vehicles too. My suggestions to your ideas

remove the roll of 6 thing to turn ap5/6 weapons into ap5/6 weapons, an alternative stratagey to keep balance for the bolter type would be to simply change their ap to 6 or -
secondly against Av10 vehicles the current gun system already totals them quickly and making them more fragile than they already are would really ruin them.

as an additional complication to your rules i'd suggest a change to invulerable saves to instead of being used instead of armour saves now act as a counter to AP value eg: 5+ invun save now adds +2 to your save (to a max of 2+) so a terminator against ap2 weapons has a 4+ save. The reason i suggest this is because if your changes were implimented suddenly terminators and the like would lose alot of their staying power and would then need a drastic points drop (killing the fluff).
 

·
Scourge Lord
Joined
·
1,638 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Thanks for the comments guys. Very helpful!

All weapon use a revised Str value , to determine armour penetration value.(AP)
I really love the concept of that system Lanrak, but the part I quoted here is where I run into a roadblock. I'm not entirely sure how you get this new AP value. Also, I'd like not to have to redo the stats for every weapon. It's better for me to make a rule that works with the existing game, even if the alternative is more intuitive.

Other than ignoring power armour.

Which is quite some benefit.

I get what you're trying to say overall, that armies like Orks might as well not have any armour because lasguns are the only weapons which allow them their save anyway, but personally I have no problem with this system. If Orks weren't so easy to destroy, can you imagine what it'd be like facing them?

~ DiW
Ahh, you missed my point there! An AP3 gun is generally more expensive since it can punch through the really tough armor of a Space Marine, but it might as well be a bolter if shot at the next best armor value. Gintoki explained the issue really well, so I'll leave it at that.

As for da Orkz, it's just a 6+ save. I save give it to them. It's not going to make them much more resilient, and it's not like I'm giving them a 4+ save (did someone say cover?).

remove the roll of 6 thing to turn ap5/6 weapons into ap5/6 weapons, an alternative stratagey to keep balance for the bolter type would be to simply change their ap to 6 or -
I could probably do without that, but I don't really see the problem. I don't mind giving AP5/6 weapons their bonus on lucky or well-aimed shots. At least that keeps them a little more effective than weapons that really are AP-, especially against vehicles (looking at pulse rifles and gauss flayers, but gauss needs tweaking anyway).

secondly against Av10 vehicles the current gun system already totals them quickly and making them more fragile than they already are would really ruin them.
It's actually a little deceptive. Overall, I think AV10 benefits a little because the multitudes of S4/5 weapons are typically going to be AP-. This should make light vehicles a little bit less afraid of everything and more afraid of the special anti-armor weapons, but those are typically high-Str anyway. +3 to penetration doesn't matter much when you're pretty much always penetrating already. That's the theory anyway. I'll have to see if it holds up during some playtesting. AV10 vehicles like Trukks and Raiders are already relying on their cover saves and army tactics (kill them first!) to keep them around. The AP changes shouldn't hurt them much in these areas.

as an additional complication to your rules i'd suggest a change to invulerable saves to instead of being used instead of armour saves now act as a counter to AP value eg: 5+ invun save now adds +2 to your save (to a max of 2+) so a terminator against ap2 weapons has a 4+ save. The reason i suggest this is because if your changes were implimented suddenly terminators and the like would lose alot of their staying power and would then need a drastic points drop (killing the fluff).
At first, I thought that was pure gold! But then I thought about TH/SS Termies. They would get 2+ saves all the time.

So I'm thinking what I need to do here is just go the simpler route and allow invul saves to be taken like ward saves (you roll for armor and then invulnerable saves). Daemons, of course, would still take one save, since their armor *is* their invulnerable save in most cases (iron hide excluded).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
178 Posts
yeah i can agree to that, simpler than modifying the armour saves and it does the exact same thing anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
370 Posts
Hi Krovin-Rezh.
Just a quick post to clarify.
What I meant was classify the ability of a weapon to beat armour value , as AP (Armour Penetration.)

Rather than call this ability 'str', I want to call it' AP'.
And if we use the constant AR(arnour /resistance to damage) scale ,from 1 to 14 to denote ALL units ability to withstand damage.
By simply deducting the AR value from the AP value we get the score to roll over to save the hit.(AP-AR =number to beat to get save roll)
But for this to work effetilvey we have to increase the current str values of weapons accordingly to get usable AP values.

If we assume;
Light infantry have AR of 1 or2.
Meduim infantry have AR of 3 or 4.
Heavy infantry have AR of 5 or 6.
Super heavy infantry have AR of 7 or8

Light vehilces have AR of 9 to 10
Meduim vehicles have AR of 11 to 12
Heavy vehicles have AR of 13 to14.

Then we allocate weapon AP value to get similar saves to the current game.
Small arms AP 5 to 7.
Support weapons AP 6 to 9
Fire support weapons 7 to 10.

My new Idea for weapon type are, anti tank an anti infantry types.
Anti tank weapons get 'bonus dice' that is added to the AP value vs vehicle units (and equivilents)(Same as current penetration dice and similar damage table.)

Anti infantry weapons get 'bonus dice' that are used to check to see if target unit becomes supressed,( when shooting at non vehilce units).

TTFN
Lanrak
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,884 Posts
Other than ignoring power armour.

Which is quite some benefit.

I get what you're trying to say overall, that armies like Orks might as well not have any armour because lasguns are the only weapons which allow them their save anyway, but personally I have no problem with this system. If Orks weren't so easy to destroy, can you imagine what it'd be like facing them?

~ DiW
Agreed

Krovin, I see what you're trying to do, but if the AP system was changed as you are suggesting all codecies woulld have to be immediately updated. You start giving guardsmen saves against bolters and Guard are going up in power, with no downside to them, the marines would still have their normal save against IG retaliation after all.

The Emperor Protects
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
178 Posts
Agreed

Krovin, I see what you're trying to do, but if the AP system was changed as you are suggesting all codecies woulld have to be immediately updated. You start giving guardsmen saves against bolters and Guard are going up in power, with no downside to them, the marines would still have their normal save against IG retaliation after all.

The Emperor Protects
with that you are missing the point of the entire thread, yes there would definitely need to be point changes but the actual thread is about making AP/saving throws a linear system where in groups with 4+ and 5+ saves actually have a chance on the battle field without mechanised transports because their ap4/5 counterparts do not throw out the same punch as they used to. warhammer 40k is essentially "the one with the greatest defense wins" and the current system promotes marine dominance through the marines themselves only being negatively effected by generally anti tank weapons (i don't see much AP 3 anti infantry around).

with a linear system alot more variation can come about between AP and saves which allows more units to function differently for example there would be a point in shooting an ap3 weapon into a terminator squad, yes it's less effective but it isn't pointless like our current situation.

i'll probably edit this post later so it makes more sense but there are advantages in reducing the sharp effects of AP for all sides for honestly very little need to change on the other end (other than codex revision which is done with any rule change)
 

·
Scourge Lord
Joined
·
1,638 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Krovin, I see what you're trying to do, but if the AP system was changed as you are suggesting all codecies woulld have to be immediately updated. You start giving guardsmen saves against bolters and Guard are going up in power, with no downside to them, the marines would still have their normal save against IG retaliation after all.
I think this argument requires an example to explain.

One full SM Tactical Squad w/ Flamer, HB, Chainsword (160 pts) vs. 3 Infantry Squads each w/ Meltaguns (180 pts)

Start them at 12" range. IG go first.

  1. IG fire 18 lasguns + 2 meltaguns; 9 + 1 hits, 3 + 1 wounds; 2 SM down on average.
  2. SM fire 13 bolt shots + 3 HB + flamer (about 5 under template); 9 + 2 + 5 hits; 10 dead IG.
  3. IG fire 9 lasguns + 1 meltagun; 4.5 + .5 hits, 1.5 + .5 wounds; 1 SM down on average.
  4. SM fire 11 bolt shots + 3 HB + flamer (about 5 under template); 7 + 2 + 5 hits; 10 dead IG.
  5. No IG left. SM have 7/10, while IG have 0/20.

Now give that same example my changes to AP:

  1. IG fire 18 lasguns + 2 meltaguns; 9 + 1 hits, 3 + 1 wounds; 2 SM down on average.
  2. SM fire 13 bolt shots + 3 HB + flamer (about 5 under template); 8 + 2 + 4 hits, 2 critical hits; 5 unsaved + 2 + 2 unsaved + 2 (crit); 10 dead IG.
  3. IG fire 9 lasguns + 1 meltagun; 4.5 + .5 hits, 1.5 + .5 wounds; 1 SM down on average.
  4. SM fire 11 bolt shots + 3 HB + flamer (about 5 under template); 6 + 2 + 4 hits, 2 critical hits; 4 unsaved + 2 + 2 unsaved + 2 (crit); 10 dead IG.
  5. No IG left. SM have 7/10, while IG have 0/20.

No discernible difference in results.

These examples are actually as favorable to the IG as possible (meaning they are within lasgun range without first getting shot). There's no cover, but the cover would also benefit the SM from the meltas. I could give the IG flamers or anything else, but it won't make a significant difference. Perhaps they would do slightly better in close combat due to 2 attacks on the charge, but that's assuming they get there at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,884 Posts
Krovin, you're giving the marines rapid fire but not the IG, besides a normal 40k game would include a certain amount of cover, this would give the marines a 4+ against meltaguns and the IG 4+ against antthing the marines have.

Also you're saying that they start 12" apart, then letting the marines fire the heavy bolter and allowing their flamer to get 5 hits, the template is 8" long.

The Emperor Protects
 

·
Scourge Lord
Joined
·
1,638 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Yeah, I forgot lasguns were rapid fire in my haste (had to leave for work). The story doesn't change with twice the las shots though. IG kill 3 SM, IG lose a whole squad, even without the HB. Next turn IG kill 1-2 SM, and again lose another squad.

Why would I include cover in an example about the merits of giving Guardsmen their 5+ armor save? Cover's not a big factor when you're talking about being within flamer range anyway. But if you want me to give IG a 4+ save, why do you think 5+ saves are going to unbalance the game?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
370 Posts
Hi all,
looking through the 2nd ed rules, I wondered if using a revised version of the old damage values, (number of wounds per hit)might be an alternative to the AP system?

If we change the weapon profile to this.

Range/str /type/no of shots /no of wounds.

The number of wounds per hit , means the target model has to save against this many wounds per hit.

Anti tank weapons that put a lot of damage into one shot like melta weapons cause 4 wounds per hit.

Anti personell weapons that fire a lot of less powerful rounds like a heavy stubba fire three shots that cause only one wound each.

So rather than totaly ignoring armour saves like the AP system ,the multiple wound system make the target model take more saves , therfore increses the chance of failuire.

Rough guestimate of multiple wounds to AP value/
AP1= 4 wounds per hit.
Ap 2= 3 wounds per hit.
AP 3 = 2 wounds per hit
AP 4 and above 1 wound per hit.

Simply add the wounds per hit over one to the armour penetration +D6 .
Eg melta becomes str 8 +3+D6
Lascannon becomes str9+2+D6
Krack missile becomes str 8 +1+D6

This seems to balance out armour as ALL saves are ALWAYS taken, but some weapons inflict more damage so cause more saves to be taken...rather than invalidating most saves most of the time!

This also de cludges instant death and eternal warrior debarcle...

TTFN
Lanrak.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
349 Posts
Alot easier system I came up with:

Improve the armour save of everyone by one. You now have a 1+ to 6+ armour save.

Add 1 to all the invulnerable saves. (except for storm shields, they get 2, for a 5+) and C'tans, Daemons and Avatars.

Now, you save on any roll equal or higher than your armour save. (marines save on a 2+ now) (termies save automaticly) BUT you fail on any roll equal or higher than the AP.

A Marine vs a bolter saves on a 2,3,4 or on a 2,3 vs a Heavy Bolter. You can never fail on your invulnerable save (6 for termies now) A termie being shot by a Boltgun fails on a 5 (only).

If you were to be invulnerable, you instead fail on a 1 or on a whole who is then rerolled and any rolls of 1,2,3 fail. (not sure which one.)

Needs a bit of cleaning up but thats the general idea.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
370 Posts
HI .
@The EndIsHere.
So in essence you want to use the 'AP value' to 'cap' the the sucessful saveing throw.

Although slightly 'cleaner' than the current AP system , it doesnt fix the exponetial increse in effectivness of saves, or the dependancy on opposing forces to determine the in game value of armour and weapons.

The basic AP system is poorly concieved and implemented ,IMO.

Graduated systems that use stat comparisions to give required results, or repetition of target score requirments ,are far simpler and give more intuitive results.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top