It is totally possible to convert between them easily. In fact, it is especially easy to convert backwards.

Whenever it says 1AP or 2AP read "half action" and whenever it says 3AP or 4AP read as "full action."

For weapons rate of fire it is slightly more complicated, but not much. Mostly you just take whatever they gave you and slap down double that number as the full auto RoF, that number as the semi-auto, and if a weapon has 1/2 give it s/2/- and if it has single shot it is s/-/-. A simple compatibility pdf armoury release would do the trick and nicely shove everything into one list to boot. Once you have changed the RoF listings you can safely ignore stuff about spending variable AP in the combat chapter and you are pretty much good to go.

That seems to easy you say? The AP system assumes higher possible rates of fire by basically trading away all of your reactions and making a full action attack. But the weapons' RoF tends to be balanced around not doing that since you miss a lot and want to aim (or take cover, or dodge) instead.

Other than that it really is that simple. All AP are is quarter actions. It is further granulation. Dividing each round into four pieces instead of two (two half actions / turn). Reactions became a use for saved AP and rate of fire was made to interact with it, both easily reversed if desired.

It is harder to convert forward, but not impossible. So if you love it, you can keep it. If you hate it, you can skip it. The effort is minimal. With some clear sidebars/optional rules/support documents they could go either way on this one.

I much prefer the coherence and tactical choice of AP, but I get not wanting to fight with it and I hope they can find a way to make everybody reasonably happy.

I'm going to use the same arguments that were thrown down my throat in the currency thread.

No! We don't need optional rules included because they would eat space! The simple nature of AP for those who like them will deter all the other GMs and players who abhor simple math! Printing costs will rise exponentially! Variety of similar nature mechanics is too confusing!

Keep AP, skip new RoF rule.

AP makes the combt much more tactical, as you can trade your reactions for improved attacks, movements and such.

The other way round, you could stay extremely cautious with 4 reactions.

This allows for more individual combat styles tht can be greatly adapted towards the combats situation.

I really don't see how AP make combat "more tactical", except in the sense that one is now forced to track movement closely rather than making on the fly rulings like "it will take you two actions of running to reach the guy". Sacrificing Reactions for more powerful attack was already a thing in old rules.

I've seen some very good tactical thinking on behalf of my group using old rules, especially since OW/BC freed up that half action that used to be spent full attacking/auto shooting.

I really don't see how AP make combat "more tactical", except in the sense that one is now forced to track movement closely rather than making on the fly rulings like "it will take you two actions of running to reach the guy". Sacrificing Reactions for more powerful attack was already a thing in old rules.

I've seen some very good tactical thinking on behalf of my group using old rules, especially since OW/BC freed up that half action that used to be spent full attacking/auto shooting.

The free use of AP to spend on defense (reactions) or on actions is a tactical element thats interesting.

Also you formerly could only say its half or full. A rather dual system. Now you can define the needed time better scaled, which can be good for the balance between different actions if done right.

I agree with you that this might not be done perfect so far - but thats still something to be done in the beta-time.

Giving a half action to semi and full auto also lead to the problem to making them significantly better than single-shots, especially called shots, which look really poor in OW. But thats another topic, which can be discussed under any ruleset.

I really don't see how AP make combat "more tactical", except in the sense that one is now forced to track movement closely rather than making on the fly rulings like "it will take you two actions of running to reach the guy"

No reason you can't do the same thing here "it will take 4 AP of running to reach the guy" is pretty much the same thing.

Sacrificing Reactions for more powerful attack was already a thing in old rules.

...but was limited to a few special cases and not a flexible, I could not save an AP for reactions and instead aim with it, move with it, take cover with it, draw a weapon with it, spend more time shooting/swinging with it, stand up with it, etc.

It is about choice and flexibility. Making players choose and giving them the mechanics to choose what they do, sacrificing one thing for another depending on circumstance, roleplaying, or whimsy is one of the strengths of a traditional RPG.

I've seen some very good tactical thinking on behalf of my group using old rules, especially since OW/BC freed up that half action that used to be spent full attacking/auto shooting.

Of course, this is really in the same vein, but is more systematically incorporated throughout the system.

The single biggest problem with AP is that there are weapons with RoF less than 1. If all of these weapons were changed to have a RoF of 1 and given Single Shot, it would solve a lot of the issues.

Suddenly, a slow firing sniper rifle becomes more attractive because, even though it might only be able to fire once per turn, you can dump a whole three AP into Aiming (+45), or two Aim actions (+30) and a Called Shot. Couple this with a better Called Shot (maybe +1 damage per DoS?) and slow firing weapons aren't that bad.

I really don't see how AP make combat "more tactical", except in the sense that one is now forced to track movement closely rather than making on the fly rulings like "it will take you two actions of running to reach the guy"

No reason you can't do the same thing here "it will take 4 AP of running to reach the guy" is pretty much the same thing.

Much more troublesome due to a larger number of permutations available.

Sacrificing Reactions for more powerful attack was already a thing in old rules.

...but was limited to a few special cases and not a flexible, I could not save an AP for reactions and instead aim with it, move with it, take cover with it, draw a weapon with it, spend more time shooting/swinging with it, stand up with it, etc.

It is about choice and flexibility. Making players choose and giving them the mechanics to choose what they do, sacrificing one thing for another depending on circumstance, roleplaying, or whimsy is one of the strengths of a traditional RPG.

On the other hand, too much choice is simply confusing, and that's what the AP system introduces for me and my group.

I've seen some very good tactical thinking on behalf of my group using old rules, especially since OW/BC freed up that half action that used to be spent full attacking/auto shooting.

Of course, this is really in the same vein, but is more systematically incorporated throughout the system.

For a certain quality of "incorporated", perhaps. For me, it's just needless complication that bogs down play.

The general amount of tactical options wasn't increased significantly through the AP system, it just took longer to resolve them this way.

Sacrificing Reactions for more powerful attack was already a thing in old rules.

...but was limited to a few special cases and not a flexible, I could not save an AP for reactions and instead aim with it, move with it, take cover with it, draw a weapon with it, spend more time shooting/swinging with it, stand up with it, etc.

It is about choice and flexibility. Making players choose and giving them the mechanics to choose what they do, sacrificing one thing for another depending on circumstance, roleplaying, or whimsy is one of the strengths of a traditional RPG.

On the other hand, too much choice is simply confusing, and that's what the AP system introduces for me and my group.

We had the exact opposite happen in my group.

The large number of Combat Actions always bogged the game down. Nobody could ever remember the exact details of how each of them worked, or even that all of them existed.

With the AP system, the players could essentially create their own Combat Actions out of modular pieces. It became much quicker for them to do what they wanted to do, because the core blocks were so simple.

I really don't see how AP make combat "more tactical", except in the sense that one is now forced to track movement closely rather than making on the fly rulings like "it will take you two actions of running to reach the guy". Sacrificing Reactions for more powerful attack was already a thing in old rules.

I've seen some very good tactical thinking on behalf of my group using old rules, especially since OW/BC freed up that half action that used to be spent full attacking/auto shooting.

Lets take a simple situation. You have no reason to move, no talents that affect the outcome, plenty of ammo in your gun, and you're shooting at some other guy. Under the old system your only choice was which fire mode to use. Your other half action is used to aim (if you have one, depending on which rules we are using) and one reaction.

With AP in the same situation, you have to choose between an increased chance of landing a hit (aim), the number of potential rounds that hit the target (AP spent to attack) and how prepared you are to defend yourself (AP left over). You have more choices to consider, making it more tactical.

On the other hand, too much choice is simply confusing, and that's what the AP system introduces for me and my group

Then it's clear that your group doesn't want to make the system any more tactical.

I really don't see how AP make combat "more tactical", except in the sense that one is now forced to track movement closely rather than making on the fly rulings like "it will take you two actions of running to reach the guy". Sacrificing Reactions for more powerful attack was already a thing in old rules.

I've seen some very good tactical thinking on behalf of my group using old rules, especially since OW/BC freed up that half action that used to be spent full attacking/auto shooting.

Lets take a simple situation. You have no reason to move, no talents that affect the outcome, plenty of ammo in your gun, and you're shooting at some other guy. Under the old system your only choice was which fire mode to use. Your other half action is used to aim (if you have one, depending on which rules we are using) and one reaction.

With AP in the same situation, you have to choose between an increased chance of landing a hit (aim), the number of potential rounds that hit the target (AP spent to attack) and how prepared you are to defend yourself (AP left over). You have more choices to consider, making it more tactical.

Under old system, in the same scenario, I have exactly the same choices, except they're packed into actions.

Aim? Check.

Number of potential rounds? Choice of an appropriate fire mode - also very tactical under OW/BC rules, as more potential bullets = less chance to hit at all.

Prepared to defend yourself better? It's called Guarded Action.

The choices made affect the outcome differently than in the new system, but they do affect the outcome visibly.

On the other hand, too much choice is simply confusing, and that's what the AP system introduces for me and my group

Then it's clear that your group doesn't want to make the system any more tactical.

As long as you equate "more tactical" with "more beans to count", I guess we don't.

APs were a fine way to change the action system. Gives folks finer control over how they spend them and all that.

Really, it's the RoF usage of them that was all borked up.

On that end, Fractional RoF should be defined as [numerator] AP allowed for certain actions while comitting a total of [Denominator] to the shot. And there better be a **** good reason for a 1/2 or 1/3, and the only reason for 0/X ever should be that there's a minimum duration on a very big sustained beam for folks to slag single incoming Hormagaunts or sweep across hordes of ravenous Land Raiders, with attached "per AP on target" or sweeping rules and all that stuff.

Example: A meltagun with 1/2 still needs two per shot - that's its own way of being slow, BUT, you could be moving, aiming, finishing off a reload, setting a called shot, using some 1AP sweeping order, maintaining a psychic power or whatever - plenty of actions that don't require you to let go of the gun. Two shots and you've given up your defense, but two aimed shots with a meltagun in a single turn is bound to screw things up.

Why not keep AP, but change the RoF to be more in line with the previous systems ?

Like:

> Single Shot: 1 AP

> Semi-Auto: 2 AP

> Full-Auto: 3 AP

Written as before: S/2/6

Also introduce this to melee and it could work (single attack, swift, lightning).

That could work, yes

And it would still somehow be in line with the old rules - at least easier and more similar than the current concept.

It also means that you can take more AP to aim if you shoot less bullets - balances it out a bit between Single, Semi and Auto.