My Take:

(2) This is almost a must now. VTOLs will soon be useless.
(3) Bad idea. Imagine SW fenrirs. Dawg, they would be tough.
(4) The worst of the bunch. Yuri M. would be unstoppable.
(5) too complicated

How about:

(6) charge not AP. Its the most common AP attack.
(7) all artillery AP is single use.

Dragon, if you had noticed in that post I said "I wish I had the FS:FM in front of me.. " etc. I later did. :p
Kinda helps when looking right at the rules, quiaff? (like you were :p )

Simple solution to whatever you were talking about with 23 point D, ducky. shoot the unit with point D and knock the equipment offline or knock it's Def down.


Wow, lotsa additions to this thread while I was gone. I must say, keep in mind that AP was coined by wizkids in MW:DA as the equipment of choice for sidestepping defensive SEs (which if the opponent is smart, should be able to use to good effect)

Now, some say decoy should ignore the effects of AP. Solution: to keep it BALANCED (I'm still worried about the theoretical 23def decoy coming another) decoy could/should be moved into the movement catergory. If it is as you all say, Decoy would fit right in with the likes of Evade and ECM. Then, a rule involving streaks could've been added in making more sense (because you guys haven't realized yet that if streaks ignored decoy and AP didn't, then you could have an ECM/decoy combo which would be unpreventable). So THERE is the problem with that, it isn't AP. As for reactive armor versus AP, thats another story.

And thanks for saying clearly what I've been trying to get the numbskulls to see the whole time: "Giving AP a negative modifier to hit complete ruins the whole point of the equipment itself." "I love Armor abilities exactly because they're powerful - even stifling - in the right circumstances. But I'd hate to see them choke this game down. "



About that VTOL issue - thats where my solution of switching decoy to movement (though it would mess up a lotta dials) would fix that better.

Well that was one thing I certainly didnt consider, infantry with reactive.
There are 2 infantry figures with reactive. The SW fenrir and the DF commando team LE. The fenrir loses reactive after 2 clicks and the commando team LE after 3. I dont think this is idea breaking as close combat will get around the reactive as well. Its only two figures anyway and one is a LE.
Ive been trying to leave charge out of this discussion and deal soly with AP vs Defensive SE's. There are enough threads on that topic alone.
I dont think that making Arty AP single use is enough. After it pogs a armored target out of it armor, its job has been done.

I guess I don't see regular old AP range combat as a problem.

Can one person name a mech with a primary AP attack that is playable? I can't but I don't know the new set well. Nobody plays mechs for the AP SE.

The places where AP is over powered is artillery and ----drop attacks. These are both separate game issues and have been dicussed on numerous other threads. Nerfing AP to address these issues is a bad idea.

And that leaves charge. Armor will never be worth its cost as long as charge is AP.

Pryde, EC is against indirect fire attacks, not ranged combat. So a piece with EC and Decoy would only be invulerable to indirect fire, which it is anyway due to the EC. EC Still would remain effective against streak over blocking due to it being a indirect fire attack, but not against streak on a range fire attack against Decoy.
mlotoole0, As far as playable Mechs with AP, Viktor Hannan, Cynthia Kelly, the SS sun cobra...
Regardless you have a very valid point. Most of the AP thats played is arty, or dropped. No arguement from me. So something we can consider is that AP in and of itself is not problematic but the arty units that have it? Even then its AP thats causing the problem not nessicarily the arty. Although taking a AP hit from 36" away does make you take notice.

I forgot what my point in saying that was, Foust... but I think you missed it ;-

When you remember let me know, and we can discuss it from there.

Well, I think one of the few things most(and I underline most) of us can agree on, is AP should not effect decoy.

That leaves the evasion / Decoy combo question.

which exists on 22 units. Most of them you would laugh if you saw on the battle field. 4 are VV1 rangers. (with the LE)

A few APC's and a few vtols. Nothing to offencive. and no 3 cap apc's.

2 mechs have it.

Skullcap gerret, which gets it about the time he is almost dead.

and the DF Blade.

Of all the units, I can think of 2 that could do some damage. the DF blade, and Wahab fusilla's Balac. However, both, with decoy, (and elevation for the balac) max out at a 20 def. which means the blade is charge bait, and the balac, is dust with the new AA guns.

HOWEVER, I would not put it past WK to come out with a really nasty unit. Similar to the DF BH, but with decoy. It hasn't happened, but the potential is there. and after the SSw A4 snafu, we would be kidding ourselves to think that wk would learn its lesson and not let it happen again.

I do like the reactive armor idea stopping ap, i just thought it was unfair for the sw to get more benifit then the other factions. Though SW is supposed to be the master of balistic attacks, it does only make sense they they should also know how to counter it.

My whole purpose of this post was to give defensive special equipment a little more value for the units that have it.

And the only way I felt this could happen is if AP somehow lost some of its ability or value.

Will something happen from this thread, probably not. but, If nothing else, I want to thank those who participated. Foust, your input has been awsome. thanks for joining in on the debate.

mlotool0, you too.

Prydefalcn, you gave some good counter points.

And thanks to everyone else that took part I didn't mention.

I think the thread has about run its course.

We have given a bunch of good arguements for and against a change. I hope now a wizziekid takes a look, and it spurs some discussion someplace important.

Thanks again all for participating.

It was my pleasure to be apart of a thread where we could discuss things rationaly. To all who participated thanks. Excellent topic Mercy.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Except for the last sentence - armor isn't useless because of Charge...it just has a huge gaping weakness that's pretty easy to exploit. Oh, wait...
;)

I've said, all along, that the ONLY change I would make to AP is
that it NOT neutralize decoy, in direct fire situations. ;)

I'm sure this has probably been said already (I'm going back through the entire thread), but who cares about AP affecting or not affecting decoy?

It does not seem to unbalance the game that AP ignores Decoy. It certainly makes the text for AP simple (i.e. ignores defense SE). Why complicate the matter and make it so AP ignores all SE except decoy.

Is it the illogic that gets people going? If so, there are many other rules that need changing before this one.

Besides, this is an armor thread anyway. I think charge is far more abusive as an AP attack than any unit with AP damage. Fix that before AP.

I also noticed people feeling AP was overpowered because people would only field AP units. Well, I have to agree with all those people fielding AP units. They are there (in my opinion) so we don't have to deal with BORING assault mech battles. Until CA The highest attack values were almost always 10 (with the rare 11 or extremely rare 12). I don't know about you, but facing a 23 defense with hardened armor is not very exciting. If AP did not do exactly what it is designed to, we'd all be playing huge assault mechs with massive armor and alternating missing each other with occasional hits for negligible damage. They would have to score VC by how many clicks of damage taken rather than units eliminated because there would be none. You think bumper bots is bad, try Boredom Warrior.

Now I'm really going to be stirring the Hornet's nest. I feel AP artillery are fine. I like assault mechs to collect, but really don't enjoy battles between them. They are often reduced to the luck of the dice (i.e. someone hitting), and once one person hits the battle is likely over as their advantage goes up when the opponents attacks go down. Artillery solves this problem by keeping uber mechs off the battlefield.

I like my games fast and hard hitting. Artillery certainly makes people engage right away!

I certainly hope nobody at Wizkids believes that AP needs to be nerfed. I vehemently disagree with the idea that AP is a problem.

my opinion,
Pickman

As you go back through this thread I trust you will get a better understanding of how this thread arrived at the conclusions that we did. I would like to hear your opinion after you have considered some of the points brought up earlier in this thread.

yeah, pryde I lost your point somewhere in there too LOL:p

but anyway... mercy, how many DF blades do you see on the field? not many. If wizkids were to actually put rules like these through not only would it be a happy day for everyone who puts stuff on these forums (because they actually listened) but it would also put a whole darn lot of new units into the "playable" category.
I have one thing to say if AP were to not effect decoy... YAY! GO HL KOSHIS! SMASH TO YOUR HEARTS CONTENT UNTIL YOU'RE COMPLETELY OBLITERATED OFF THE FIELD!

oh yeah, and I think this thread has actually become constructive because we got our petty name calling out of the way early... (sorry about all that pryde old sport. pip pip and all that, eh what?)

Ummm...........dude, I care. Or didn't you get that? ;)

IMHO, it's patently ILLOGICAL that decoy, which requires a 2nd
successful attack in EVERY other direct-fire situation, automatically
gets trumped by a unit equiped with AP direct-fire weaponry
(which does ZERO damage if it doesn't hit - hence, the purpose of
decoy!). :rolleyes:

Also, the issue of decoy vs. AP IS relevant to this thread, as this
thread is all about defense SE's (of which, decoy is one).

Sure, other issues, such as tank drop, need to be addressed.
However, none of them are the subject of this thread.

Just MY opinion. :)

David