How would the meta change, if...

This thread is for completely theoretical changes that could be made to warhammer 40k rules, and discussion how it could affect the players and other armies. You can say your own opinion, tell how you would change an army-list (or would you start preferring one army over the other a lot more), and what else would you do differently.
Feel free to come up with any other topics and changes and say it here for discussion.

The first one is something I thought about from WHFB, and it would be pretty huge.

Essentially, AP values always affect. They would decrease the armour-save of a unit that takes them.
AP 5 against a +3 save = +5 Save in the end.
AP 3 against a +2 save = +6 Save in the end.

Other stuff implemented with this could be +1 armour saves, as well as being able to take both an armour save and an invulnerable/cover save (maybe all three?)

So, how do you think this would change the meta?
If we go with just AP values decreasing armour saves, everything would of course die a lot easier, and cover would become a lot more important. And a splinter rifle with AP5 wouldn't look too bad against a terminator anymore.

If multiple saves can be taken if one is failed, how would that affect the game? It would make cover a lot more important. If a marine is shot with an AP5 weapon, he would essentially have the same save as he used to if he is in +5 cover, so a +5 followed by a +5 for an armour and cover save.


What I would see with both of these changes (or just the first one) that stuff gets killed a lot and terrain becomes a whole lot important. Some weapons would be more useful because it isn't mandatory to have a lot of AP2 stuff everywhere.
A lot of point-costs should probably be adjusted and maybe some other rules modified.


Again, purely theoretical. Making a change like this would screw over a lot of people and change the game quite a lot.

I think it might change TOO mucg.
At this level, even a lowly squad with AP 5 weapons has a much higher chance of obliterating a Space Marine squad. Hell, if we're at that stage, we're talking about AP reducing a Terminator to a 4+ save. That would be LETHAL to everything. I kn ow you say his save would be normal if in cover, but that assumes he's in cover! If not, he's in serious trouble!

I've thought about a system like this myself and I rather like the idea of it too, but I think they'd have to make some other adjustments as well. I've always hated how things like missile launchers can be so devastating against 3+ save units like a Talos, and then you try it against a model with 1 better armor save like a terminator and it becomes a total waste.

For balance purposes, I'd probably be tempted to have AP6 have no affect on enemy saves, AP5 bump it up by 1, Ap4 by 2, etc. I agree that they'd still want to give the super tough units like terminators a 1+ save so that they're still exceptionally tough against small arms fire but start to suffer to better AP weapons. I think they'd have to rethink the saves on a lot of units to make a system like this possible tbh which seems unlikely since it's hard to do an across the board update to stats like that. I'd like to see a movement stat introduced as well, but I'm not gonna hold my breath.

This is basically the same as the old 1st and 2nd edition save modifier rules. Going from memory, something like a lasgun had no save modifier whereas a lascannon had -6. This was in the days when all your saves stacked, so if you had power armour and a conversion field you had a -1 save, although I think a 1 still failed. Terminator saves were 3+ on 2d6.

I actually quite liked this because it gave a gradation to the save mechanism rather than the current all or nothing approach where you either get your full save or none at all.

It would really be interesting.
I didn't know 40k did have that, I don't have nearly all the editions! ^^

Specific AP-modifiers for weapons would be interesting yeah, so that missile launchers would work on terminators.

AP values and Cover Saves were invented for 3rd edition precisely because armour modifiers made for some absurdly unfun games. I remember a guy who played space wolves and had 20 terminators, each with assault cannon and cyclone launcher: He would go first (strategy cards, remember them?) and they would fire up to 9 x 20 = 180 Strength 7 shots into your army (they didn't all have to shoot at a single unit back then, and you resolved it one by one). At -4 to your armour save, space meringues didn't get one, and even other terminators would fail about half, never mind if you happened to play something other than space meringues, like orks or eldar! Cover? It imposed a modifier to your 'to hit' roll, not terribly relevant when they had BS 6 and were rolling about 60 to 180 shots.

And that was not all! Then they would each blow their stock of cyclone missiles, covering your side of the table with 20 S8 blasts about the size of the current Apocalypse one. Cover did not affect these at all, they merely scattered as they do now. BS 6, right?

Do you have anything left? Okay, your turn.

Dark Angels did something similar with Chickenwing land speeders. Eldar would try to bring as many Starcannons as possible. Basically, these were games in which you won by getting the first turn. Melee units were hopeless; they could never make it into combat unless they were in a land raider. Shooting was just too brutal.

3rd edition tried to balance it out. They probably went a bit too far and a lot of games ended up in a big melee pile just rolling handfuls of dice, but on the whole it was a step up: at least you got to play, instead of just spending 30 minutes setting up, getting all shot up in one turn, and then another 30 minutes putting your miniatures away.

So, it may seem like a good idea, but I remember when they did it that way and it was awful.

That says more about the capabilities of the rules writers than it does about the rule itself. It would be pretty easy to balance a game around save modifiers. Certainly easier than it is to balance around the 'all or nothing' approach that's been in place since 3e. How do you balance a weapon that butchers one model automatically but does nothing against another equal-cost model?

To be fair, those rules writers were from another era who didn't play that way and couldn't even imagine anyone wanting to. They were surprised and dismayed by the use that their rules were put to. I understand them, why would you want to play a game like that? What would be the point? I played with that Space Wolves player only once. The next time I just said no. If what he got out of it was the win, then fine, I conceded. I conceded again. I conceded a hundred times, mark them up, go nuts! Just don't waste my time, right? I honestly didn't mean to upset him, but it just wasn't any fun for me, and I can't imagine how it could have been any fun for him either.

I seem to remember Jervis Johnson writing a number of 'spirit of the game' articles saying basically 'we didn't mean for our rules to be used like that, so please, please use them in the spirit in which they are intended', for which he got a good deal of unfair hassle. As if 'play nice, it's supposed to be fun for everyone' were an utterly ridiculous thing to say.

Maybe they could flip it around: wound against Armour, then save on Toughness. Leave out AP and save modifiers. It would be simpler and it would make more sense?

Barking Agatha wrote:

As if  'play nice, it's supposed to be fun for everyone' were an utterly ridiculous thing to say.

It basically IS an utterly rediculous thing to say, considering the type of game it's referring to. At it's core, 40k is a tactical war game. Telling someone not to use a tactic because it's effective is silly. The rules should be written with tactics in mind in any such game. No one would bat an eye at a player using an effective set of moves in chess, even if it is a set of moves that is incredibly difficult to defend against. All wargames are along the same lines as a chess game. They're both about tactics and strategy. Faulting a player for using winning strategy is, as you say, utterly ridiculous.

Now, I understand that both GW and many people who are fans of the 40k fluff have tried to make this more of a friendly, casual hobby that is primarily about all involved players having fun. That is noble, and there is nothing wrong with that. But at the end of the day, 40k is still a war game, and the above rant still applies.

A tabletop RPG game lends itself far better to the philosophy of being a friendly, casual game than does a competitive wargame. Any time there are things like "winning" or "Victory points" in a game, you are breeding competition, regardless of whatever friendly or fluffy caveats you put in there about people just playing casually to have a good time. And competition will cause competitive people to use the best strategy available to win. Period.

Don't hate the player. Hate the game.

EDIT:
As an aside, regarding the main topic, I'd like to see rules in place that allow CC to happen with more frequency. The primary culprit being no assaulting the turn you arrive from reserves. I'd like to see this rule go away. Barring that(because it's very unlikely to happen), I'd like to see more special rules that allow you to ignore it. For instance, webway portals would be much cooler if they allowed any units that arrived from them to assault on the turn they arrived. Further, webway portals could be used to cover distances between them. (ie, you have 2 WWPs on the map, a unit could "embark" into a WWP to immediately disembark from another one.) I think these 2 tweaks to WWPs would make them far more useful, and overall add more tactical depth to DE in general.

No, but there's no point in going with an ultimate hardcore solitaire "I win" style list, ESPECIALLY if there's nothing on the line. Winning is not the be-all and end all. But beyond that, there's a difference between lists that are effective and winning strategies, and lists that decline to play the game. In a tournament where you've paid money to enter and there are prizes on the line then fair enough, but for other games it seems a bit stupid.

What's been described is not an 'effective tactic', it's the equivalent of an auto-win button. To continue the chess analogy, using an effective set of moves would be like manoeuvring and prioritising your units and opposing units correctly and working out the best synergies. The list Barking Agatha mentioned would be more like facing an opponent who'd replaced all his pawns with queens before the game.

New idea:

Initiative checks in an enemy's assault phase.

Simply put, if it isn't your player-turn, all of your models in CC have to make an initiative test to use their attacks.
That would indeed play a lot to our strengths, but it would also mean in not making the "two turn assault"-tactic not as obvious anymore (you never know, one of your guys could roll a 6 and prevent you from mopping up the unit).

Additional ides for rules to go with this:
1. More extreme version: no attacks at all unless it is your turn
2. No negative modifiers to combat result during your own turn
3. Overwatch at full BS
4. As above but only with a passed leadership test
5. No Sweeping Advance or Consolidation unless it is your own turn


Thoughts?

Panic is right about games with nothing on the line. You can beat someone with an abuse of rules written by naive writers anyday, so... great you win! Did anyone gain anything? Have we had fun? In a competitive setting though, go for it! Everyone else will be, because there's a point.

Like Agatha said, I give up. And again. Oh, there's another win for you. Is this fun? Are we playing games? Should we just play noughts and crosses instead?

Happily I don't know of any auto-turn-one-win-against-any-list buttons in this edition. But if you found one, and played it more than once, you are not playing, you're racking up numbers in some meaningless list.

MNGWA! Hi! I always used to wonder why both sides attacked each turn in CC while you could only shoot in your own turn. I think it'd be an interesting twist, but the game would surely take longer.

Overwatch at full BS would be horrible and pull us even further from CC fun. 7th is shooty enough!

How about no sweeping advance unless you were the charging side AND it's still the turn you charged on? That's the only time it would be slightly realistic. Two turns of combat and you've lost momentum to "sweep" anywhere, you'd be forming back up again and looking round for something to hit!