Power weapons over dinner.

[david5th]

I attended the 40K TOS tournament at the weekend and along with the usual banter about codexes, new releases, Matt Ward etc i made a point which got a group of about six of us talking.

Should power weapons be given a armour penetration bonus in CC against targets with an amrour value.
my logic was thus - a power weapon say at Str 4 will go through MEQ power armour, terminator armour, Tau battle suits, Tyranid armoured shells etc like it's not even there but will bounce off and Ork Warbuggy unless you glace with a 6.

We came up with 2 possible solutions -

Extra D3 on the armour penetration roll - Strength 4 could now feasibly glance armour 13
or
A Gauss weapon like rule so a roll of a 6 is an auto glancing hit.

I do not if this is in the right area as was a general discussion but involves rules so i put it hear.

As ever all input is welcome and much appreciated.

[Vindur]

The first is a neat concept but the problem is scaling it up. With that in place a space marine with a power fist rolls 8+D6+D3 against armour.
The Gauss weapon rule would work nicely though. It happens rarely enough in that situation, speaking from using the old agonisor from the 3rd Ed DE book

[SotonShades]

I'd almost be tempted to say you should get a +1 on the damage chart, similar to AP1 shooting weapons which are ignoring those powersaves. However your ideas would be more useful. Would powerfists also add this extra D3?

[plawolf]

I think a glancing hit on a 6 is best. You are ultimately poking a pointy stick in a tank. It would be very odd if doing that made it explode. But it would be easy to picture someone slicing the barrels off a gun or shredding a tank's tracks.

Although maybe consider dropping it to 5+. I know this looks really generous when compared to rending, but you have to remember that rending usually applies to an entire unit, so every attack made has the potential to rend, but typically, you would not expect to find more than 2 or 3 power weapons in a squad, with most squads only able to take 1 on the serg. Only a very few select units in most codexes (with the exception of GKs, but since GK power weapons are all NFW, it would be easy to limit how this rule would buff them by making a special provision in the rules for NFWs) can have more than 2 or 3 power weapons per 10 models, even in CC units like BA assault squads.

But if you prefer the +D3, that could easily be made so it does not work on things like powerfists and thunder hammers.

[Cyberscape7]

, you would not expect to find more than 2 or 3 power weapons in a squad, .

The exeption to the rule, of course, being Grey Knights.

[Drew da Destroya]

The exeption to the rule, of course, being Grey Knights.

And Burna Boyz, actually. Then again, their fluff does say that they use their burnas as cutting torches.

[Bean]

The answer, really, is that the armor/AP system needs to be revamped entirely.

AP should be a stat which is checked against an armor value by rolling a die, much like one checks strength against toughness. Vehicles and non-vehicles should both have the same type of armor value attribute, and close combat weapons should have AP values just like ranged weapons do.

So, instead of having a power weapon, you have a close combat weapon with S=bearers S and AP=8 or whatever. When attacking a guy, you roll to hit (check your WS against their WS) roll to penetrate their armor (check your AP against their AV) and roll to wound (check your S against their T).

When attacking a vehicle, you roll to hit (auto, 4+, or 6 as it is now if fine) roll to penetrate armor (AP vs AV) and then roll on the damage table with a bonus that comes from your S (say 8-9 gives you a +1, 10 gives you a +2).

The current AP system is just flatly stupid, and the fact that a weapon's ability to penetrate non-vehicle armor fails to relate at all to its ability to penetrate tank armor is a big, big part of that stupidity. You won't really fix the problem with tacked-on special rules. In order to actually make any sense at all, the system needs a substantial revamp.

[snikrot]

one thing you have to consider though is adding too many dice rolls will start to really slow the game down.

[Bean]

one thing you have to consider though is adding too many dice rolls will start to really slow the game down.

Right now you roll three times to determine what each attack does--once to hit, once to wound, once to save--or once to hit, once to penetrate armor, and once on the damage chart.

The system I proposed has exactly the same number of rolls per attack: 3--they just make more sense and utilize a more cohesive system.


Actually, though, I would add in one additional set of rolls: saves to represent things that are now represented by invulnerable saves. Of course, there are already mechanics in 40k that add a fourth roll on occasion (feel no pain, for instance) so, again, my proposal doesn't increase the number of rolls you'd make.

[MaltonNecromancer]

The answer, really, is that the armor/AP system needs to be revamped entirely.

AP should be a stat which is checked against an armor value by rolling a die, much like one checks strength against toughness. Vehicles and non-vehicles should both have the same type of armor value attribute, and close combat weapons should have AP values just like ranged weapons do.

Sweet mercy, I can't think of anythign worse. How many more dice rolls does a game need?!

I love the AP system as it stands; it's simple and works well. Frankly, I don't know if power weapons actually need to be any more effective against vehicles. If they do, the auto-glance on a 6 seems the best way to do it; doesn't make Power Fists or similar weapons any more effective. As far as Grey Knights, it would mean less talk of Psyrifle dreads but that's about it.

[Bean]

Sweet mercy, I can't think of anythign worse. How many more dice rolls does a game need?!

I love the AP system as it stands; it's simple and works well. Frankly, I don't know if power weapons actually need to be any more effective against vehicles. If they do, the auto-glance on a 6 seems the best way to do it; doesn't make Power Fists or similar weapons any more effective. As far as Grey Knights, it would mean less talk of Psyrifle dreads but that's about it.

Exactly the same number as it has now, which is exactly the number I proposed using. Are you people even literate? How can anyone read that proposal and decide that it involves more dice than the current system?

It involves exactly the same number of rolls! Count! Three per attack! Just like the current system!

Un-freaking-believable...

[wittdooley]

Exactly the same number as it has now, which is exactly the number I proposed using. Are you people even literate? How can anyone read that proposal and decide that it involves more dice than the current system?

It involves exactly the same number of rolls! Count! Three per attack! Just like the current system!

Un-freaking-believable...

I agree with you, Bean... but remember... it's easier to catch a fly with honey than with vinegar.

[Bean]

I agree with you, Bean... but remember... it's easier to catch a fly with honey than with vinegar.

You're probably right. On the other hand:

http://xkcd.com/357/

=P

[Hive Mind]

I think a glancing hit on a 6 is best. You are ultimately poking a pointy stick in a tank. It would be very odd if doing that made it explode.


No more so than a Hive Guard or Genestealer clawing a Rhino and blowing it up.

[MaltonNecromancer]

Are you people even literate? How can anyone read that proposal and decide that it involves more dice than the current system?


It's more that it's yet another thing to look up, where the current system is "What's the AP? Is it lower than your save?"

Done; nice and simple. Your proposal involves adding complication to a system, and I don't see the benefit of further complication. Having come from playing 1st ed., where there was a chart for everything (And I used to run robots, for which I had designed points-costed programs: pure insanity, I assure you), I do not want to go back to the bad old days.

It's a personal taste thing.

[Denzark]

Leave the vehicle AVs. But bring back set strengths for close combat weapons and save modifiers.

S4 -1
S5 -2
S6 -3

This was the profile for Chainswords, Power Swords and Power Axes respectively back in 2ed. Power armour was still 3+, so 50% (4+) chance of saving a chainsword hit, 33% (5+) for a powersword and 16.5% (6) for a power axe hit.

This would not only alleviate the all or nothing feeling currently. Also you can see what you would need to damage a vehicle.

Not only that but plasma pistol strengths can count, ie S7 -4 save, reflecting its power.

[Bean]

It's more that it's yet another thing to look up, where the current system is "What's the AP? Is it lower than your save?"

Done; nice and simple. Your proposal involves adding complication to a system, and I don't see the benefit of further complication. Having come from playing 1st ed., where there was a chart for everything (And I used to run robots, for which I had designed points-costed programs: pure insanity, I assure you), I do not want to go back to the bad old days.

It's a personal taste thing.

It could use the same chart as the S v T comparison. No need for another chart.

[Lerra]

I agree that AP and armor in general doesn't make sense in 40k, but do we really want this game to make sense? Realism doesn't always make for a good, balanced game. GW would need to do a tremendous amount of rebalancing if there were significant changes to the way AV/AP works.

That said, I'd like to see something like this for AV: When you get a result on a tank, roll a d6 and add any modifiers

+1 for every point by which you exceeded the armor value (ex: a railgun that rolls a 6 to penetrate a Rhino gets a +5. 16 to pen vs. armor 11)
+1 for AP1
+1 for Open-topped

1 - Stunned
2 - Shaken
3 - Weapon Destroyed
4 - Weapon Destroyed
5 - Immobilized
6 - Immobilized
7 - Wrecked
8 - Wrecked
9+ Explosion

[Bean]

I agree that AP and armor in general doesn't make sense in 40k, but do we really want this game to make sense? Realism doesn't always make for a good, balanced game. GW would need to do a tremendous amount of rebalancing if there were significant changes to the way AV/AP works.

That said, I'd like to see something like this for AV: When you get a result on a tank, roll a d6 and add any modifiers

+1 for every point by which you exceeded the armor value (ex: a railgun that rolls a 6 to penetrate a Rhino gets a +5. 16 to pen vs. armor 11)
+1 for AP1
+1 for Open-topped

1 - Stunned
2 - Shaken
3 - Weapon Destroyed
4 - Weapon Destroyed
5 - Immobilized
6 - Immobilized
7 - Wrecked
8 - Wrecked
9+ Explosion

You don't need realism, but I do think the AP/AV/Armor save system would benefit from a revamp--not just in terms of verisimilitude, but in terms of fun as well.

That said, I like your proposal.

[Lane]

I still fee the save modifier system from Second Edition 40k is better than the AP.
Weapon strength was another advantage of that system. While most hand weapons (HtH) used the users strength things like power and chain weapons had their own strength. This meant giving an IG Sgt. a chainsword was a big improvement.

IIRC Bolters were S4 -2SV, making them more effective vs Power Armor.
Eldar Guardians with Shuricats were the bane of Marines with S4 -2Sv weapons, though the upgrade was 3 pts on an 11 pt model. I know a lot of people did not take shuricats.

I know some of you are going to say it would make the game more difficult and more things to remember.
I say if that system stresses your mental capacity then you are probably struggling with the current system. In fact WHFB still uses save modifiers based on strength.

[Vermicious Knid]

The answer, really, is that the armor/AP system needs to be revamped entirely.

AP should be a stat which is checked against an armor value by rolling a die, much like one checks strength against toughness. Vehicles and non-vehicles should both have the same type of armor value attribute, and close combat weapons should have AP values just like ranged weapons do.

So, instead of having a power weapon, you have a close combat weapon with S=bearers S and AP=8 or whatever. When attacking a guy, you roll to hit (check your WS against their WS) roll to penetrate their armor (check your AP against their AV) and roll to wound (check your S against their T).

When attacking a vehicle, you roll to hit (auto, 4+, or 6 as it is now if fine) roll to penetrate armor (AP vs AV) and then roll on the damage table with a bonus that comes from your S (say 8-9 gives you a +1, 10 gives you a +2).

The current AP system is just flatly stupid, and the fact that a weapon's ability to penetrate non-vehicle armor fails to relate at all to its ability to penetrate tank armor is a big, big part of that stupidity. You won't really fix the problem with tacked-on special rules. In order to actually make any sense at all, the system needs a substantial revamp.


It would be tricky to do this without changing the balance of the game. Small changes in the core math make for major changes in results.

That being said, you could actually reduce the number of rolls to 2 if you combine armor and toughness into AV. Guy with T3 in a t-shirt AV 3, primitive armor AV4, flak armor AV5, carapace AV6, and power armor AV7. Make a similar modification to weapon STR...add the AP to final STR value. Lasgun final STR would thus be 4, would wound the T3 guy on a 3/4/5/6/6 respectively.

That makes high armor guys too vulnerable, so change the progression from 6 repeating at the top end to 6+4, 6+5, and 6+6. Requires a 3rd roll, but not all of the time. Marine in power armor would be wounded 1/18 of the time by a lasgun, and 1/6 of the time by a bolter.

Would require a lot of tweaking , but it could work.

[Bean]

It would be tricky to do this without changing the balance of the game. Small changes in the core math make for major changes in results.

That being said, you could actually reduce the number of rolls to 2 if you combine armor and toughness into AV. Guy with T3 in a t-shirt AV 3, primitive armor AV4, flak armor AV5, carapace AV6, and power armor AV7. Make a similar modification to weapon STR...add the AP to final STR value. Lasgun final STR would thus be 4, would wound the T3 guy on a 3/4/5/6/6 respectively.

That makes high armor guys too vulnerable, so change the progression from 6 repeating at the top end to 6+4, 6+5, and 6+6. Requires a 3rd roll, but not all of the time. Marine in power armor would be wounded 1/18 of the time by a lasgun, and 1/6 of the time by a bolter.

Would require a lot of tweaking , but it could work.

It would definitely require some rebalancing--no doubt about that. Clearly, it would not be a quick fix. i mean, you'd have to change every weapon's AP value, give AP values to every close combat weapon, swap out every save for an AV, and change the AV of every vehicle. It would be a ton of work--it wouldn't even be rebalancing, it would just be re-writing virtually every extant item in the game.

I think you're right that it could be simplified to two rolls, too, though I'm not sure that'd be desirable. Too few rolls is also bad.

[snikrot]

that is true only having a few rolls means 1 bad roll and you are screwed. i agree that the AP system is wierd but reworking it now would be tons of work to make shure it was still balanced with all the codexes currently out and then ones they would release after the change to still allow older codexes to be competitive.

[Cyberscape7]

Tbh this whole idea about power weapons is a little odd. Lets face it, its the 41st millenium. Tanks are gonna be made of stuffer stuff than the armour that troops have. Power weapons wouldn't do too much to them cuz of the shields and layers of protection its got.

[L192837465]

Why not just give vehicles a t value, a save, and wounds?

AV10 = t10. Av14 = t14. Problem solved. any wound make them THEN roll on the damage chart. Give them a save or something and "eternal warrior".

Wouldn't even require much revamp, and would make low AP weapons actually good against them. No more glance/pen, just how much pain it can take before dying. It would DEFINALTEY make av10 better, for sure. How many av10 transports have exploded to bolters?

Now you at least get a save and wounds.

[Skragger]

It reminds me of the Warhammer Fantasy style of CC adjustments. The strength of the attacker will reduce the armour value of the defender by X amount (there's a chart). The higher your strength, the worse their armour save is. (Hence why I can have knights with a 1+ armour save and still not be broken :D).

Something similar like that could work, with power weapons adding +1 to the effect (so rather than the models strengh affecting armour by -1, it affects it by -2), or something similar.