I hate the AP system...

[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.

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 is why give the S10 AP4 weapon a blast? But all in all, that's my point of view.