I hate the AP system...

[Denzark]

As an ex RT player, I am not liking some vagaries in the AP system:

Explanation:

You can get a S10, AP4 weapon. This will have a reasonable chance of defeating AV14, but power armour gets a save. You can then get a S8, AP3 weapon, that will be a magnitutde harder to defeat AP14.

This makes little sense to me as the properties that are required to penetrate tank armour are exactly the same as those required to penetrate body armour, ie, kinetic energy and how it disperses. Particularly in vehicle v vehicle, and particularly krak, an anti armour weapon that is only good for light armour.

Solution: Bin the AP system. Bring back a save modifier system, linked to strength - we are clever enough to work out modifiers on the hope. It also allows for the degradation of armour by weapon systems, rather than the all or nothing approach.

Leave the vehicle pen rules as they are, AP is largely irrelevant.

Things like melta can still be accounted for in the weapons special rules.


Rant over.

Ta Ta for now.

[Melissia]

I agree that the AP system isn't perfect, but I must admit that I don't particularly like WFB's system either. In fact I prefer the AP system to WFB's system.

Technically speaking, the concept of shot strength is the REAL problem here anyway, not AP. After all, something can have a high amount of strength-- that is, ability to wound an infantryman (such as monofilament wire)-- but not actually be all that good in anti-armour situations.

"Strength" is a highly abstracted and imprecise concept. AP is more believable than strength is.

[Bean]

I generally agree with Melissia. The system is not perfect, but it does generally work. I like it fine, in comparison to the Fantasy system, but I would re-work it significantly if I were to re-write the rules.

It isn't quite true, though, that high armor piercing and high lethality always go hand in hand.

Consider modern handgun ammunition.

The lethality of a wound from a handgun depends entirely on shot placement--that is, a wound will be lethal only if it damages a certain portion of the body. Generally speaking, this includes only the brain, upper spine, heart, and major veins and arteries (which are only fall into the same category because they result in rapid blood loss, which, in turn, results in brain death). If a bullet does not damage one of these items, the bullet will almost certainly not be lethal (though shock and pain and even broken bones can potentially take someone out of a fight--a factor for which it is extremely difficult to account) however damaging one of these items generally requires that the bullet penetrate a certain amount of flesh and skin--anywhere from a a few inches to dozens. Thus, when law enforcement (the FBI, specifically) looks at the effectiveness of handgun ammunition, they're looking mainly at the depth of its penetration through human flesh (or calibrated ballistic gelatin, which is fairly comparable).

In addition to penetration depth, the dimensions of the bullet are relevant. Though the difference is often extremely slight, a slightly larger bullet has a slightly greater chance of damaging something important.

This is lethality (or strength, in 40k terms, when firing at non-vehicles) in a nutshell, at a level where it is very uncomplicated (once projectiles reach a certain velocity, factors like hydrostatic shock and fragmentation become important, and I don't think anyone really knows what factors dictate the lethality of, say, laser weapons--the data simply doesn't exist =P)

Things change slightly when the target is wearing armor, though. A bullet which penetrates more deeply into ballistic gelatin will almost always be similarly better at penetrating armor, but bullets which are larger generally penetrate worse than bullets which are smaller--and bullets which deform significantly on impact tend to penetrate very poorly. So, while a hollow point 9mm bullet may generally get as much penetration as you need against an unarmored target even while it deforms, giving it a larger relevant profile and allowing it to crush more tissue as it penetrates than a solid, fully jacketed round with the same caliber and charge (and thus making it generally slightly more lethal than the fully jacketed round) the hollow point bullet's deformation makes it far less able to penetrate armor.


That was longer than I intended. The point is that penetration and lethality are not necessarily positively correlated, but that they generally are. Similarly, penetration against armor and penetration against a person are not necessarily comparable, in a practical sense.

40k should have separate penetration and lethality (strength) stats, and penetration should modify armor saves rather than either ignore them or do nothing. Similarly, rolls to penetrate vehicle armor should be based on a weapon's AP stat, rather than its lethality stat.

[Denzark]

The old modifiier system worked in 1/2ed...

[LidlessPraetor]

Personally, this is one of many of the rules in 40k that could be transfered over from WHFB. The sad thing is: armor doesn't even matter anymore, imo. The biggest problem in 5th ed is: cover. I think it's sad that an IG player can get the same armor save as the Tau, only they don't pay any points for it, and you don't even need to be in cover to get it assuming you have screens, or the enemy screens themselves.

I don't think cover should do what it does now (provide an armor save), I think it should do what cover does in WHFB (decrease your opponents chance to hit you). I think they should do modifiers for just about any roll, including defending cover in CC. Instead of cover making you strike first, just have it add to your initiative value instead... does the same thing as the rules now, just with a modifier chart instead of an obscure rule. Hope I didn't stray too off topic, I tried...

[Bean]

The old modifiier system worked in 1/2ed...

The current system works now.

Neither, though, is a very accurate representation of the factors that dictate the efficacy of weapons.

[TheBitzBarn]

I would disagree that S and AP are the same. Some weapons will have a stong kill factor but not able to penatrate armor the Pentration is not solely tied to strength. If that were try why does the Abrams have a SABOT round and HE round.

[Bean]

You're right (to a certain extent) but I think you'll find that pretty much all types of ammunition fired by the M256A1 use sabots.

[DarkLink]

Well, if you want to be realistic, then save modifiers are completely out the window. Armor is significantly tougher than the human being (or space Marine, or alien, or whatever) inside. If a round has the power to punch through the armor, it will do severe damage to the thing wearing the armor.

So the way AP represents the "either you get armor, or you don't" is realistic. Real body armor follows that exact same pattern, where armor is rated to stop a particular level of bullet, based on bullet's penetrative power. Either the armor can stop the bullet, or it can't. If it can stop it, the worst you'll get is a broken rib, or a nasty bruise. If it can't, then you're about to get medi-vaced, if you're lucky.


However, it's true that AP should be tied closer to the strength of a weapon. Certain properties of a weapon other than pure kinetic/explosive power can affect penetrations, but if a round capable of punching through tank armor hits an infantryman, it will be able to punch through their armor as well.





I would propose a system in which the AP of the weapon is determined by strength, with certain weapon special rules providing modifers to the AP. So a Lascannon would be AP 2 due to its high strength, but because a meltagun has special penetrative properties it would have an Armor Piercing special rule.


It could work like this:

Strength/AP
1-3: AP-
4-5: AP 5
6-7: AP 4
8: Ap 3
9-10: AP 2

Weapon special rules:

Armor Piercing: The weapon gains -1 AP, and gains +1 on all vehicle damage rolls

Non-Piercing: The weapon gains +1 AP, and -1 to all vehicle damage rolls.

[Melissia]

I dunno, I prefer the AP system as it is. The only place I don't like it is in the assault rules.

[pinchy]

I don't think cover should do what it does now (provide an armor save), I think it should do what cover does in WHFB (decrease your opponents chance to hit you).

They used to do that in 2nd ed and it basically just led to everyone bunkering up in cover just as badly if not worse than they do now. The -hit modifiers from cover (-2 for hard cover from memory) were pretty brutal and devalued armour saves worse than cover does now.

If (and it's a very big if) they ever did go back to an armour modifier system then I'd rather cover gave a +1 or +2 to armour or something instead of messing with your hit chance. Though really it's more hassle than it's worth, part of the joy of third edition being introduced was getting rid of all the small modifiers and other factors that just slowed the game down.

[pgarfunkle]

I played the old system and this one and generally prefer the new one. Makes the game faster without a zillion different modifiers to remember. Most people I've played have enough trouble remembering all the basic rules as they are now without complicating the game further (and I include myself in there too)

[Aldramelech]

Lets take some WW2 examples.

The 2pdr anti tank gun is a great example. In 1939 it was regarded as one of the best AT guns in the world. This is because the muzzle velocity was extremely high and gave great Armour penetration. Now the downside was the round was so small it didn't do much damage, it didn't have the weight of shot or if you like low strength.

Now compare to the German 75mm L/24 gun as fitted to early model P1Vs. Its a low velocity gun designed to fire HE shells so has poor Armour penetration, but it does have a healthy weight of shot or strength.

So it is more then possible to have high strength and poor AP and vise versa.

[DarkLink]

Yeah, though I doubt any infantry would be able to take a hit from either one.

[Grailkeeper]

Are there actually any strength 10 weapons that are AP4? I can't think of any weapon abovve strength 9 that isn't AP 1 or 2. Min you I'm a little rusty on Xenos weaponry

[Bean]

The biggest problem, really, is that you roll to penetrate a tank's armor using your Strength value, when you have a perfectly good Armor Penetration value that you could be using, instead.

Obviously, the mechanics of that roll would have to be slightly different, to account for the inverted hierarchy of AP scores, but still: the AP value should be relevant when attempting to penetrate a vehicle's armor. Not the strength value. Then, you could have the strength value modify the roll on the vehicle damage table (and maybe extend the vehicle damage table a little to accommodate a little more modification) and end up with a vehicle damage system which is both more sensible and more dynamic.

It is just inane that strength penetrates armor and armor penetration modifies the roll on the damage table. At the very least, this should be reversed.

[gilbert93dt]

Well, if you want to be realistic, then save modifiers are completely out the window. Armor is significantly tougher than the human being (or space Marine, or alien, or whatever) inside. If a round has the power to punch through the armor, it will do severe damage to the thing wearing the armor.

So the way AP represents the "either you get armor, or you don't" is realistic. Real body armor follows that exact same pattern, where armor is rated to stop a particular level of bullet, based on bullet's penetrative power. Either the armor can stop the bullet, or it can't. If it can stop it, the worst you'll get is a broken rib, or a nasty bruise. If it can't, then you're about to get medi-vaced, if you're lucky.


However, it's true that AP should be tied closer to the strength of a weapon. Certain properties of a weapon other than pure kinetic/explosive power can affect penetrations, but if a round capable of punching through tank armor hits an infantryman, it will be able to punch through their armor as well.





I would propose a system in which the AP of the weapon is determined by strength, with certain weapon special rules providing modifers to the AP. So a Lascannon would be AP 2 due to its high strength, but because a meltagun has special penetrative properties it would have an Armor Piercing special rule.


It could work like this:

Strength/AP
1-3: AP-
4-5: AP 5
6-7: AP 4
8: Ap 3
9-10: AP 2

Weapon special rules:

Armor Piercing: The weapon gains -1 AP, and gains +1 on all vehicle damage rolls

Non-Piercing: The weapon gains +1 AP, and -1 to all vehicle damage rolls.

That very well may be their guide line, and instead of having "armor piercing" or "non-piercing", they simply have modified stats. For example; the krak rocket is S8 and Ap3, which follows your system, but a melta gun is S8 and Ap 1( or is it 2? irrelevant anyways). It gives the creators more room for creativity. In your system, every weapon would be the same, no matter if it is a Tyranid bio-weapon or an Imperial laser.

[BlacknightIII]

This debate led me to the thought a melta gun is a str8 ap1 weapon that works by literally melting through armour. Well if the gun can survive repeat shots why not coat the armour on tanks with the same material to make the resistant to the melta gun shots?

Very off topic I know but something to think about.

[DarkLink]

Are there actually any strength 10 weapons that are AP4? I can't think of any weapon abovve strength 9 that isn't AP 1 or 2. Min you I'm a little rusty on Xenos weaponry

Nope, you're a little rusty on Guard weapons:p.


That very well may be their guide line, and instead of having "armor piercing" or "non-piercing", they simply have modified stats. For example; the krak rocket is S8 and Ap3, which follows your system, but a melta gun is S8 and Ap 1( or is it 2? irrelevant anyways). It gives the creators more room for creativity. In your system, every weapon would be the same, no matter if it is a Tyranid bio-weapon or an Imperial laser.

No, only the AP of various weapons would be the same. Any other special rules (blast, melta, lance, TL, etc) would be the same. A krak missile would still be Str 8 Ap whatever, but because a meltagun would have the armor piercing special rule it would have a better AP and have a bonus against vehicles. And, of course, it would still have the melta rule.

[Colonel Pryde]

How about this:
Weapons are disigned for differing purposes. Tank A fires a high explosive round at tank B. Tank B easily survives. Tank A fires an AP round at tank B and Tank B get's knocked out. Now, Tank A fires an AP round into an advancing infantry platoon, 3 die. But when a High explosive round is fired, 10 die.

Now I'm not saying that this AP system isn't flawed but suppose that your S10 AP4 weapon is basically an AP round designed to destroy tanks. While the S8 AP3 weapon is that HE round that excels on killing infantry. My only problem with my own idea :D is why give the S10 AP4 weapon a blast? But all in all, that's my point of view.

[DarkLink]

Well, you could justify it by saying the gun was so effective against tanks because it had a heavy penetrator, and a small explosive attached to the rear. It would penetrate the hull, then the small explosive would kill everything inside easily. However, that same small explosive wouldn't be able to throw out enough high-lethality shrapnel when targeted at an infantry target out in the open. Or something to that effect.

[DarkAngelHopeful]

Are there actually any strength 10 weapons that are AP4? I can't think of any weapon abovve strength 9 that isn't AP 1 or 2. Min you I'm a little rusty on Xenos weaponry

I don't remember the name of the weapon, but I believe Tyranids have a S10 AP4 weapon. I play my friends Tyranids a lot and I'm pretty sure my marines get an armor save against his S10 weapon. On the down side, he usually tries to blast my tanks open with it.

[erwos]

There's no really good solution for this. I personally liked armor modifiers in 2E, because they gave purpose to using autocannons and heavy bolters against heavily-armored troops on a regular basis. But there's no doubt that, just like THAC0 in D&D, it was a rather awkward solution requiring some on-the-fly math.

AP is an elegant solution in terms of speed and processing, but it leads to perverse outcomes where space marines actually fare better than Land Raiders against certain weapons.

The solution I'd like to see would link anti-infantry-armor to anti-vehicle-armor performance. I'm not claiming this is a good solution, but I'm kinda thinking that giving troops an AV value instead of an armor value might have some benefits.

So, just to use the simple case: as it is, a guardsman shines a flashlight at a marine. Assuming it hits and wounds, the marine has to roll a 3+ to save (66% chance).

We can replicate this with AV values. A flashlight is S3. So, if the marine was AV7, the attacker would have to roll a 5 or 6 to beat the armor (66% chance to save).

Of course, this would have some far-reaching implications. Let's say a guardsman was AV5. As it currently is right now, he gets no armor save against bolter fire. But with the new system, he'd actually have a 1/6 chance of saving against it. This is not necessarily a bad thing, IMHO.

It would also open up some intriguing possibilities vis a vis terminators and other super-heavily-armored troops, as you could set their AV to 10 or similar - making them basically impervious to small arms fire, which is not a terrible thing if costed appropriately.

The system falls apart somewhat when it comes to assault. Power weapons don't make sense within this system, unless you're going to say they give a 1.5x multiplier to S, 2d6 to penetrate infantry armor, or similar.

I know the implementation is flawed, but I think there's something there that could be built on.

[Lord Azaghul]

Are there actually any strength 10 weapons that are AP4? I can't think of any weapon abovve strength 9 that isn't AP 1 or 2. Min you I'm a little rusty on Xenos weaponry

Manticore: S10 Ap4
Basilisk: S9 Ap3
Then there is the Collosus: S6 Ap3

Guard have a lot of armour piercing/strength variance.

As far as the current system 40k goes...
I like it. Cover makes sense, going to ground makes sense

In the current fantasty system armour leads to disapointment, there are plent of weapons that deny you a save period, or your nice low save number (that you're paying lots of points for) is reduced to nothings or a 6+ .

[Nabterayl]

I agree with the folks who've said that it's the way vehicles are handled that seems weirdest. I'd base vehicle armor penetration rolls on the weapon's AP, and then make the Strength of the weapon a modifier on the damage table.

[Melissia]

Nabterayl: Then we run across the problem of close combat weapons, which never have AP.

I really wish they would give CCWs an AP... like power weapons would be AP2, chainfists / eviscerators would be AP1, and so on. Would allow for more variation in wargear.

[LidlessPraetor]

just led to everyone bunkering up in cover just as badly if not worse than they do now. The -hit modifiers from cover (-2 for hard cover from memory) were pretty brutal and devalued armour saves worse than cover does now. .

Isn't that what ppl do in war? Find the nearest piece of solid cover, hole up and bunker down until you develop a strategy to punch through the other guys' bunkers. I'd rather them get the protection for bunkering down in cover as opposed to the system now where they get cover without actually being in it. There are major disadvantages to bunkering down in cover: blast templates. The tightly-packed units all huddled together for warmth, Brokeback style, would be blown apart by ordnance and flamers. And since we no longer roll to hit with blast weapons like we used to, the reduction in BS wouldn't affect them as much. Also, if they have multiple units sharing a piece of cover (trees), then a single assault squad would theoretically be able to engage everyone in cover, possible wiping out 2 or 3 squads at a time. There's still balance there...

[Nabterayl]

Nabterayl: Then we run across the problem of close combat weapons, which never have AP.

I really wish they would give CCWs an AP... like power weapons would be AP2, chainfists / eviscerators would be AP1, and so on. Would allow for more variation in wargear.
I too would prefer to see CCWs with an AP, but even if you didn't go that route, it wouldn't be too hard to simply specify in the rulebook that for purposes of vehicle armor penetration, power weapons count as APx, monstrous creature attacks count as APy, and normal attacks count as APz.

[Lerra]

One bonus of the current AP system is that it allows GW more flexibility in rules design. It's easy to make a gun that's effective versus tanks but not infantry, and vice versa. I think any alternate system would have to have a comparable degree of flexibility, even if it doesn't make a lot of sense from a realism perspective.

[Melissia]

Isn't that what ppl do in war? Find the nearest piece of solid cover, hole up and bunker down until you develop a strategy to punch through the other guys' bunkers. I'd rather them get the protection for bunkering down in cover as opposed to the system now where they get cover without actually being in it. There are major disadvantages to bunkering down in cover: blast templates. The tightly-packed units all huddled together for warmth, Brokeback style, would be blown apart by ordnance and flamers. And since we no longer roll to hit with blast weapons like we used to, the reduction in BS wouldn't affect them as much. Also, if they have multiple units sharing a piece of cover (trees), then a single assault squad would theoretically be able to engage everyone in cover, possible wiping out 2 or 3 squads at a time. There's still balance there...
Realism != fun gameplay.

[Nabterayl]

Realism != fun gameplay.
To be honest I could totally go for a system that resulted in people hugging cover all the time, as long as the game lasted longer. Five-seven turn games force you to be pretty lead-footed on the aggression pedal.

[Tynskel]

To be honest I could totally go for a system that resulted in people hugging cover all the time, as long as the game lasted longer. Five-seven turn games force you to be pretty lead-footed on the aggression pedal.

That's easily solvable with the addition of 1 or 2 game turns beyond turn 7. It wouldn't be to hard to modify games to that length.

As for AP and stregth. I like the system the way it is. I have played since 2nd Edition, and modifiers are ANNOYING. Basically, the more modifiers you add to the game, the less points you can play in the same time period. 5th edition's rules allow for large games to be played quickly.

Another thing about Armor Piercing.

You can have low strength weapons that pierce good foot troop armor. You can also have high str weapons not good at piecing armor.

Str 10 AP4 vs marine--- if the marine fails the save, he's dead. If a tank get penetrated, Fa-Boom.

Str 8 AP3. Dead Marine- not always dead tank.

The difference? Different type of armor Penetration, you have to think about how the weapon works, and what type of armor it is facing. Power Armor is only ~10cm thick, as opposed to a tank.

What AP3 means is that 10cm of armor is going to do you no good. What high str means is that it will damage just about anything.

[Nabterayl]

Str 10 AP4 vs marine--- if the marine fails the save, he's dead. If a tank get penetrated, Fa-Boom.

Str 8 AP3. Dead Marine- not always dead tank.
I totally hear you about simplicity vs. size of game. At the same time, this example illustrates a kind of odd allocation of complexity. An S10 weapon is more likely to penetrate, but it isn't more likely to make the tank go ka-boom once it has penetrated. I can definitely imagine an S10 AP4 mortar - not everything that creates a big blast is good at penetrating armor, after all (actually lots of things that create big blasts are terrible at penetrating armor), but if such a shell went off inside your tank, you'd be in big trouble. But instead of giving the damage table modifier to things that actually cause a lot of damage we give it [typically] to weapons that are especially likely to penetrate, instead.

That's what seems weird to me. Not so weird that I won't or don't play the way things are, but definitely weird.

[Crae]

Why not replace AV instead ?

http://i745.photobucket.com/albums/xx91/cuthlas/2_0000-1.jpg

[DarkLink]

Actually, done with a bit of care that could be interesting. Though dealing with how many wounds (damage points?) a vehicle has and with weapon damage results at the same time could be awkward.

Perhaps you could do this: For each wound caused on the vehicle, roll a D6. This will cause shaken/stunned/weapon destroyed/immobilized damage results.

[pinchy]

Isn't that what ppl do in war? Find the nearest piece of solid cover, hole up and bunker down until you develop a strategy to punch through the other guys' bunkers.

Melissa bet me to it but basically just because it's realistic doesn't make it much fun, at least not in terms of 40k though for a historical WW2 style game sure it would make more sense.

[Crae]

Actually, done with a bit of care that could be interesting. Though dealing with how many wounds (damage points?) a vehicle has and with weapon damage results at the same time could be awkward.

Perhaps you could do this: For each wound caused on the vehicle, roll a D6. This will cause shaken/stunned/weapon destroyed/immobilized damage results.

I have played this system for fun with my mate and it made it quite interesting. We added another factor thou, LD tests. We decided to use the base LD value +1 and simply run the vehicles as normal models with movement restrictions and shooting restrictions. But a vehicie losing 50% of its wounds in one round has to make a LD test or retreat a certain amount and then be fit for fight the next round...kinda broken, but only pinned....if that makes sense. If I was driving a tank and came under heavy fire I would think twice about staying where I am. Meaning that the damage table is taken out of the equation. Overall it made vehicles more interesting and they where not hidden all the time. Throwing out a Leman Russ or a vindicator, knowing they have a chance to fire because they can take a certain amount of punishment is a lot of fun.
Another thing about this system, is that it allows the designers to make for instance a old school wave serpent with a open front (assault ramp) protected by a 3+ inv shield. Making the vehicle 10 12 12 opentopped, with a 3+ inv save on the front armour.
http://i745.photobucket.com/albums/xx91/cuthlas/LDsmall.jpg

[LidlessPraetor]

Leadership on a tank? Maybe on a squadron of Sentinels or Tau Piranha or something. Maybe if you had a rule for certain tanks to be fearless (Monolith and Land Raider come to mind). With all the points invested in those tanks and units inside (or teleported reserves), a failed leadership could crush that entire army's setup.

How would crossfire work? Or ramming other tanks even. Holy crap, I could see this in a cityfight, lol. A tank line destroyed by the first tank failing a moral and destroying the one behind it...

I do like the idea of tank morale though, I'll have to test it out.

[Crae]

Leadership on a tank? Maybe on a squadron of Sentinels or Tau Piranha or something. Maybe if you had a rule for certain tanks to be fearless (Monolith and Land Raider come to mind). With all the points invested in those tanks and units inside (or teleported reserves), a failed leadership could crush that entire army's setup.

How would crossfire work? Or ramming other tanks even. Holy crap, I could see this in a cityfight, lol. A tank line destroyed by the first tank failing a moral and destroying the one behind it...

I do like the idea of tank morale though, I'll have to test it out.

I might not have translated it to well from my language, but the "fall back" move is a one of move. They "auto rally" after the move. Representing the guys inside losing their nerve for a second and making a controlled retreat into a safer area.

It is intended as a replacement for the normal damage chart, since vehicles became a bit to powerful if you have 5 wounds and could just hog an area. Nobody stays put if your getting hit by a barrage of fire, Laser cannons sizzling holes along the hull and rockets exploding all around your vehicle.

It is an interesting idea, but I don't think GW will go for something like this :).

[LidlessPraetor]

but my question is, what do you do about other tanks being in the way of the fall back? Would they have to fall back around the tank behind them, or would they fall back into the tank behind them, causing a ram against their ally? And what about ally infantry? Could they be tank shocked by their own tank reversing onto their position?

And again, crossfire... Would tanks be able to be taken out by the crossfire rule? Maybe if it's only another large target, and not infantry (unless they pass a death or glory perhaps).

[Crae]

but my question is, what do you do about other tanks being in the way of the fall back? Would they have to fall back around the tank behind them, or would they fall back into the tank behind them, causing a ram against their ally? And what about ally infantry? Could they be tank shocked by their own tank reversing onto their position?

And again, crossfire... Would tanks be able to be taken out by the crossfire rule? Maybe if it's only another large target, and not infantry (unless they pass a death or glory perhaps).

Stops 1 inch in front of vehicles and infantry move to the side to allow it to pass, folding back after.

Honestly mate...I don't know :P as I said it was just something we where playing around with. We play by the normal rules usually, it was a test for a couple of "fun" games, trying to see if we could homogenise the rules. I think it adds up to Wraithlord envy on our part. One of my mates play Eldar and we wondered how it would be, if our machines worked the same way.

To do something like this, you would need a total rework of some of the rules. I think it would work, with some changes. Moral is a great idea, but maybe they should count as pinned in stead. Who knows where further play testing would have taken this :). I on the one hand loath the vehicle rules, on the other hand I miss those chain explosions from second edition. Things blowing up and landing on other stuff that then blows up too, is always a good laugh :D

crae

[Mauglum.]

HI all.
I belive the ASM in WHFB is fine for WHFB.
Roll to hit , swing a sword at the opponent, roll to wound , the sword WILL do serouis damage if its not defelected,roll to save , the sword is/is not deflected at the last munuite.

But not realy suitable for 40k , along with the other game mechanics 40k has ben lumbered with.

IF yous simply gave armour a value between 1 and 14.
And subtsrtact this value from the Strenght of the hit before applying it to the target.

So a Str 6 weapon hit is modified to Str 4 by AV2, or Str 2 by AV4.

Then this modified value is compated to the targets toughness....

The armour effects ALL weapon hit BEFORE rolling to wound , which is more sensible than the armour fixing the wounds and self repairing AFTER the event....IMO.
No extra modifiers , just subtract the armour value from the strenght of hit , before you roll to wound.

Or if you are in the mindset of the energy required to beat space age armour means the soft target is going to get squished.Why not include the targets resistance to damage with their armour value ?
(The important point is will the element be able to carry on fighting with enough effect to count.)

You can quantify weapon effect as damage.
You can quatify armour effect as armour value.
Damage - armour value = save roll required.

Eg Damage 7 vs armour value 2= 5+ save.
Damage 7 vs armour value 5 =2+ save.

There are lots of strtaight forward intuitive game mechanics available.
Unfortunatley GW doesnt want to use ANY in thier 40k rule set....:eek:

TTFN

[Kirsten]

Bring back a save modifier system, linked to strength - we are clever enough to work out modifiers on the hope. It also allows for the degradation of armour by weapon systems, rather than the all or nothing approach.

Leave the vehicle pen rules as they are, AP is largely irrelevant.

Actually if you consider the nature of guns vs armour, the AP system works well. Consider real life, you get a pistol and shoot at some body armour, it is either powerful enough to penetrate, or it isn't, doesn't matter if you fire one shot or a dozen, the result will be the same every time. A lasgun wont penetrate power armour, a failed save is essentially the shot striking something vital, a join, eye lens etc. Furthermore, as others have said, strength doesn't necessarily mean literal kinetic impact, monofilament web is a good example. Shotguns have a high impact, but limited armour penetration capabilities. I like the current system, it marks a difference to fantasy and other game,s something uniquely 40k.

[Mauglum.]

Hi Kirsten.
Just to point out that ANY armor is not totaly effective up to a certian point then totaly ineffective.Real world interactions show a progressive effect.

If you were wearing body armour -bullet proof vest.It is possible the concussive effect of the projectile to cause fatal injuries without the projectile penetrating the armour.Infact it goes minor bruising - major bruising -winding.Broken bones internal hemoraging, fatal organ faluire due to concussion .
ALL before the projectiles beat the armour.

Having a uniquley inadeiquate system that requires other systems to cover ALL interactions and a heap of exceptions to make it slightly less bland, could be seen as a bad thing.

I will stick to the rule sets that deliver maximum gameplay with the minimum of written rules.As I prefer to play games rather than read through rule books.;)

TTFN

[BuFFo]

I agree with Kirsten.

In our game system, we are only conerned with one thing; can the bullet penetrate armor?

40k is not at all concerened with every possible outcome from a bullet hitting armor. Not even fantasy is concerned with such things.

The AP system works fine... It is the Cover Save system that has always bothered me.

[Nabterayl]

Hi Kirsten.
Just to point out that ANY armor is not totaly effective up to a certian point then totaly ineffective.Real world interactions show a progressive effect.

If you were wearing body armour -bullet proof vest.It is possible the concussive effect of the projectile to cause fatal injuries without the projectile penetrating the armour.
I've always assumed that's what happens when a model fails its armor save. I'm with Kirsten and BuFFo that I like the AP system better than a save-modifying system, precisely because it seems more realistic to me. As I've said, my "problem" is with the vehicle armor penetration system.

[BuFFo]

I've always assumed that's what happens when a model fails its armor save. I'm with Kirsten and BuFFo that I like the AP system better than a save-modifying system, precisely because it seems more realistic to me. As I've said, my "problem" is with the vehicle armor penetration system.

The thing is, the Fantasy system is no more realistic, deeper or better. It is just different.

In 40k, if a model fails its saving throw, then it is assumed the model is removed from combat, not becuase he is always dead, but rather rendered non-useful for the short duration of the battle.

When players start blurring what is 'realistic' in these game systems, you start to walk into situations where you just need to stop, because realism and game play are two entirely different concepts.

If you want realism, join the Army like I did, and go to war.

[DarkLink]

Hi Kirsten.
Just to point out that ANY armor is not totaly effective up to a certian point then totaly ineffective.Real world interactions show a progressive effect.

If you were wearing body armour -bullet proof vest.It is possible the concussive effect of the projectile to cause fatal injuries without the projectile penetrating the armour.Infact it goes minor bruising - major bruising -winding.Broken bones internal hemoraging, fatal organ faluire due to concussion .
ALL before the projectiles beat the armour.
TTFN

While it is theoretically possible to suffer severe injury from a bullet, despite it not penetrating body-armor, in practice this is highly unlikely. Most of the time, Soldiers and Marines hit in combat in the Middle East with either fall down from the initial shock, then get right back into the fight, or not even notice they've been hit. After the battle, they'll realize they have a hole in their vest, and a nasty bruise under it. But in combat, adrenaline will push any concerns over the bruise to the background.

The damage caused by a bullet that is stopped by armor is typically insignificant compared to the damage caused by a bullet that penetrates the armor. I would say that the AP system is a far more accurate representation of how armor works in real life than another system.

However, the issue in this case is that AP is not tied to strength, directly. In real life, any strength 10 weapon would probably be able to punch through most any infantry armor, so in real life there wouldn't be such thing as a Str 10 attack that would allow armor saves (as if there were such thing as armor saves in real life).

[Melissia]

So then you should just say there's a problem with GW's application of the AP system.

[Mauglum.]

Hi folks.
I will drop the issue of 'realism' as it is open to interpritation of how the particular system handel the details of the interaction.

A simple Question.
Would you like 3 seperate systems , all with multiple exceptions to cover weapon -armor interactions.

Or

Would you prefer ONE system that covers ALL weapon and armor interaction , without ANY exceptions?(That gives the same diversity of results.)

If the AP system covered ALL unit and weapon interaction it would be a valid argument to ask why to change it.

But as it doesn't.
So asking why not change it for a sytem the does cover ALL weapon -armor interactions is more of a valid argument , isnt it?


TTFN
Lanrak.

[DarkLink]

I presume you refer to the dichotomy of shooting infantry, infantry in close combat, and vehicle damage?

I personally like how Warmachine handles it. After rolling to hit, you roll for damage. You take 2d6+Strength, and for every point over the target's defense you cause one wound. Most infantry have five or fewer wounds (most have only one). Characters have 10-20, roughly. Warjacks have, maybe, 30 wounds or so. Damage is the same for shooting and melee, and there is no special distinction for vehicles.

Now, of course you couldn't just rip off Warmachine's system. But I like the general layout, personally.

[Mauglum.]

Hi Darklink.
Yep, thats the three basic seperate systems , then you have the vunerable 'invunerable ' saves vs special rules exceptions /abstractions loaded on top!

As most armour takes a passive roll , it gets hit and absorbs-deflects some of the damage intended for the 'soft target behind it'.

It works BEFORE the damage gets to the target.

The 'armour/defence' value being subtracted from the 'damage /attack' value to detemine the effect on the attacked unit, is THE simplest way to get proportional results with out additional complication.
(Extra modifiers or additional systems.)

So the genral run through would be.

Attacking UNIT rolls to effect the target UNIT.
(Either a modified roll 'to hit'or 'to see', based on TARGET UNITS skills.)

Defender detemines damage inflicted.
(Damage -Armour = Effect.Roll to save the attacks within effective range .)

Attacker resolves detailed damage on target.
(Moral damage for multiple model units ,like infantry cavlary etc, or detailed damage for single model units like veihicles and MCs.)

3 steps the same as 'roll to hit',' roll to wound' ,' roll to save'.But in a more logical order that allows more detailed results.

Anti tank weapons could get a bonus to armour penetration (+D3.+D6,+2D3,+2D6)

Anti personell weapons could get a bonus to supressive effect.(+D3.+D6,+2D3,+2D6)
Note this would not be given to 'small arms', JUST special, heavy and ordnance weapons.

Target units supresion value = armour value + wounds.

Attackers supressive effect = number of shots + supression bonus.

If supressive effect greater than supression value , the target is supressed.(Shaken)
If the supressive effect is over 2 times the supression value the target is nuetralised.(Stunned)

Ill stop there...

TTFN
lanrak.

[pimpdaddyork]

I don't like the idea of how a lascanon will destroy a meganob, peiceing his super heavy armor but when he stands behind a tree or grot he has a 50% chance to just ignore it. I think that this should be changed, maybe cover saves should be modified by strength or strength modified by cover. It would make more sence that standing behind a tree will block lasguns but not a demolisher canon shot.

And how come you don't get multible saves, example a spacemarine is in cover and gets hit by bolter fire the player must choose between his save and the cover save. Shouldn't he get to use both sence the rounds must first go through the cover and then though his armor. its not like he stands up when bolters fire then hides when plasma gun fire.

[Mauglum.]

Hi pimpdaddyork.
The 40k dev team decided to 'simplify' the 40k rules by making obscurment the same as physical protection.

This is an abstraction.
But as 40k seems to pick complicated abstraction over simple simulation.
It sort of fits the general 'fudge the basic rules to allow more unecisary special rules' mentality:eek:.

To cover the current 40k game play with straight forward simulation type rules , would only take about 30 pages of rules.
And you could have a load of special abilities without having one special rule that contradics the basic rules.(Like so many other rule sets do.)

But the down side is players would be able to make more in game decisions , so the focus would shift away from the heavy strategic loading.As this loading makes specifc units for specific tasks , it drives short term sales.

ALL the other TTMG I play let cover modify the chance of hitting or spotting the target behind.
So cover lets obscurment happen BEFORE the armour effects are concidered.

Following real world events it runs like this...

Cover makes a unit harder to see/hit.
IF the unit is seen/hit the armour modifies the damage before it is applied to the target.
This modified damage is applied to the target to determine its effect.

Rather than
Cover replaces physical protection if its deemed to be benificial for the target to use it.:rolleyes:
FULL damage is aplied to the target and causes a wound.
Then the armour heals up the wound and self repairs...:eek:
(Unless the unit is a vehicle then If S>AV= random damage)

Its possible to write straightforward rules that follow real world interaction.This results in intuitive easy to learn rules , that deliver lots of great game play with the minimum of fuss.

However, 40k appears to be stuck with complicated abstractions (layered on top of the WHFB rules),to make the game play sound cooler than it actualy is.;)

TTFN

[Hyperion]

As an ex RT player, I am not liking some vagaries in the AP system:

Explanation:

You can get a S10, AP4 weapon. This will have a reasonable chance of defeating AV14, but power armour gets a save. You can then get a S8, AP3 weapon, that will be a magnitutde harder to defeat AP14.

This makes little sense to me as the properties that are required to penetrate tank armour are exactly the same as those required to penetrate body armour, ie, kinetic energy and how it disperses. Particularly in vehicle v vehicle, and particularly krak, an anti armour weapon that is only good for light armour.

Solution: Bin the AP system. Bring back a save modifier system, linked to strength - we are clever enough to work out modifiers on the hope. It also allows for the degradation of armour by weapon systems, rather than the all or nothing approach.

Leave the vehicle pen rules as they are, AP is largely irrelevant.

Things like melta can still be accounted for in the weapons special rules.

Rant over.

Ta Ta for now.

Why not eliminate normal saves altogether and add armour values to toughness as a modifier, keeping invulnerable saves for cover,fields and abilities etc. Save time too...

[DarkLink]

Why not eliminate normal saves altogether and add armour values to toughness as a modifier, keeping invulnerable saves for cover,fields and abilities etc. Save time too...

That's essentially what Warmachine does. There are no saves (aside from a FNP style special rule). Everything, such as cover, is handled by an armor stat, with modifiers.

[Mauglum.]

Hi Darklink.
Its not just Warmachnine that uses 'simple simulation' to arrive at intuitive fluid game play.Practicaly every other game I know of uses more elegant and efficient rules than 40k !

Unfortunatley 40k would need a complete re-write to allow such modern games development ideas to be used.
And GW wont bother re-writing the rules unless they start loseing sales in a significant way.
( Andy Chambers wanted a re-write for 4th ed,to correct the mistakes made in 3rd ed, GW corperate refused to correct the mistakes they forced on 40k in 3rd ed.)

To be fair I dont think there is anything in the 40k rules that could not be replaced with a more elegant and efficient alternative.
(I posted a outline of an alternative rules in the Homebrew rules forum.)

So the AP system, like the vehicle rules, etc, are just adding complication to an inapropriate core rule set.
(Inapropriate in terms of maximising gameplay with the minimum of rules.)

TTFN

[Lordgimpet]

I dunno it seems fine to me but in my deluded way I just feel the order is backwards.

we are seeing if the model is wounded before we see if it even penetrates the armor
to me making a armor before seeing thoes that actualy got through the armor wound the model seems more realistic but meh.. :P as for the relationship of STR to AP I just feel it natural that there are armor piercing rounds that make a small hole and ones that if they manage to break thorugh are going to make a mess.

[Mauglum.]

Hi Lordgimpet.
Are you agreeing resolving cover, then armour, then damage / wounds, is more sensible than,resolving if a wound is caused THEN negate the wound using armour OR cover?

Most other game I play use straight forward rules that cover ALL armour and weapon interaction with LESS rules than 40k uses.

So not only is 40k more complicated its also more abstracted than it needs to be.

As reguard to the damage resulting from the weapon impact it is basicaly,
Damage from weapon impact - how much damage the armour disapates-deflects= resultant damage caused behind the armour.

Usualy by the time the armour plate allows a penetrator through, it has failed to prevent concussive shockwaves and spalling .(As these are the first types of damage passed onto the soft target behind the armour.)

[Lordgimpet]

Sort of, the way I had in my demented mind could mean it would be: cover if any to represent the shot even making it to you with out being interrupted by some factor or chance on a shot that would hit, if hits getting through the armor, then if the ensuing wound caused is fatal or not.

In my mind the current order is we are determining if the shot is fatal before it even hits the target due to cover, or even penetrates the armor. its just a thought I amuse myself with when I have a bad batch of 1's
rolled :D

[Mauglum.]

Hi again.
Lordgimpet, you I get you now.
The rules are rediculous , but at least you can have a laugh when it all goes horribly wrong.:D

It baffles me why anyone would pick exclusive abstract rules, over fewer inclusive intuitive rules.

Perhaps GW game devs dont get much chioce anymore?

TTFN
Lanrak.

[Denzark]

Surprised that my initial rant raised this. But, some retorts:

The why change argument? Could have been applied to 2ed - they kept the basic profile of a mini for example...

Complicated abstracts etc. Well if WHF players can cope then so the hell can we.

And none of it still covers my initial main point - that a weapon with a 50%(glance) 33%(pen) chance to negate LR armour, should sure as sh*t have a negative effect on individual power armour.

[Mauglum.]

Hi Denzark.
My point was if they wanted to change shooting from 2nd ed rules.They should have picked something far more suitable than the poorly concieved and implemented AP system.That doesnt even cover ALL weapon -armour interaction.(Andy Chambers wanted to adress this problem for 4th ed, but corperate wouldnt let him.)

WHFB shooting rules are just an extension of the close combat rules mechanics , so one system could be used universaly for the WHOLE game.
So in this reguard they are ok for WHFB, as shooting plays a supporting role in WHFB.

But as 40k is suposed to be set in the future with more advanced equipment than lumps of wood and metal.;)
And as shooting is the prime interaction of the game, why not use ONE simple system that covers ALL weapon and armour interaction?

The main problem you describe is due to multiple simple systems that are abstract and exclusive.
Where as a simple single intuitive system would be much better at delivering consistant and intuitive results across the range of interactions.

This point adresses and answers you original question , doesnt it?

TTFN
Lanrak.