| Author |
Message |
 |
|
|
|
|
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
2010/01/05 06:41:17
Subject: Question on extra armour on tanks ECT.
|
|
Blood Angel Neophyte Undergoing Surgeries
colorado
|
OK hears the deal with this question. I was playing space marines vs Tau he had a gun line with 3 units of 3 broadside each with im sure everyone knows they have twin linked s10 ap1 shot anyway back to my question he shots and glances on a 4 so basically thats a -2 so down grades to a shakin and stuned and then my extra armor would down it -1 to a crew shaken so no shooting then a +1 because of the ap 1 so make it a +1 so back to stunned and shakin right ??? But in this case he said that the ap1 ignores the extra armor. So am I right or is he???
|
|
|
|
 |
|
2010/01/05 06:57:37
Subject: Question on extra armour on tanks ECT.
|
|
Mutilatin' Mad Dok
|
The +1 for AP 1 and the -2 for glancing are cumulative, for a net -1 to the roll. a Roll of 4 becomes a 3, resulting in a Weapon Destroyed result.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010/01/05 07:00:14
Subject: Re:Question on extra armour on tanks ECT.
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
The AP 1's +1 would take effect immediately for the damage result making the roll 4 + 1 - 2. The extra armor would only come into play if the final result was a 2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010/01/05 07:02:43
Subject: Question on extra armour on tanks ECT.
|
|
Incorporating Wet-Blending
|
All extra armor does is modify a stunned result to shaken. It does not apply a -1 modifier to the chart.
In the above situation the result is Weapon destroyed:
Die roll= 4-2(glancing)+1(AP1)=3
|
Mannahnin wrote:A lot of folks online (and in emails in other parts of life) use pretty mangled English. The idea is that it takes extra effort and time to write properly, and they’d rather save the time. If you can still be understood, what’s the harm? While most of the time a sloppy post CAN be understood, the use of proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling is generally seen as respectable and desirable on most forums. It demonstrates an effort made to be understood, and to make your post an easy and pleasant read. By making this effort, you can often elicit more positive responses from the community, and instantly mark yourself as someone worth talking to.
insaniak wrote: Every time someone threatens violence over the internet as a result of someone's hypothetical actions at the gaming table, the earth shakes infinitisemally in its orbit as millions of eyeballs behind millions of monitors all roll simultaneously.
|
|
|
|
|
2010/01/05 07:11:10
Subject: Re:Question on extra armour on tanks ECT.
|
|
Blood Angel Neophyte Undergoing Surgeries
colorado
|
I see so I thought it made it a -1 because it says it down grades it to shankin. But its cool thanks guy for the help. So basically extra armor is pretty much pointless.
|
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/01/05 07:12:06
|
|
|
|
|
2010/01/05 07:19:54
Subject: Re:Question on extra armour on tanks ECT.
|
|
Angered Reaver Arena Champion
|
Not entirely. Some vehicles, such as LR (crusader or redeemer) and to a lesser extent dreadnoughts, need to keep the ability to move.
The point cost of extra armor is heavy, so its not worth it unless the vehicle is already expensive. Nothing on the rhino chassis really deserves the extra investment.
|
Sangfroid Marines  5000 pts
Wych Cult  2000
Tau  2000 |
|
|
|
|
2010/01/05 07:24:05
Subject: Re:Question on extra armour on tanks ECT.
|
|
Incorporating Wet-Blending
|
Dracos wrote: Nothing on the rhino chassis really deserves the extra investment.
I disagree with this. The primary purpose of RB's and Rhinos is to move troops, not shoot; EA helps accomplish this and is worth the investment every time for me.
|
Mannahnin wrote:A lot of folks online (and in emails in other parts of life) use pretty mangled English. The idea is that it takes extra effort and time to write properly, and they’d rather save the time. If you can still be understood, what’s the harm? While most of the time a sloppy post CAN be understood, the use of proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling is generally seen as respectable and desirable on most forums. It demonstrates an effort made to be understood, and to make your post an easy and pleasant read. By making this effort, you can often elicit more positive responses from the community, and instantly mark yourself as someone worth talking to.
insaniak wrote: Every time someone threatens violence over the internet as a result of someone's hypothetical actions at the gaming table, the earth shakes infinitisemally in its orbit as millions of eyeballs behind millions of monitors all roll simultaneously.
|
|
|
|
|
2010/01/05 07:29:23
Subject: Re:Question on extra armour on tanks ECT.
|
|
Angered Reaver Arena Champion
|
The problem there is that on a 35 point model you are paying 15 points for a piece of wargear that has a low chance of getting used throughout the entire game.
Will rhinos perform better with extra armor? Certainly.
But I didn't say anything opposing that. I said they do not deserve extra armor. The reason is because it is too expensive for the model. If extra armor only cost 10 points, I still wouldn't take it. I'd take it for 5 points though.
This exercise tells me that extra armor is too expensive for its use. Put extra armor on 2 rhinos and you are already 5 points shy of just getting another rhino!
I can always find a better way to spend those 15 points.
|
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/01/05 07:30:06
Sangfroid Marines 5000 pts
Wych Cult 2000
Tau 2000 |
|
|
|
|
2010/01/05 07:50:39
Subject: Re:Question on extra armour on tanks ECT.
|
|
Incorporating Wet-Blending
|
Dracos wrote:The problem there is that on a 35 point model you are paying 15 points for a piece of wargear that has a low chance of getting used throughout the entire game.
Will rhinos perform better with extra armor? Certainly.
But I didn't say anything opposing that. I said they do not deserve extra armor. The reason is because it is too expensive for the model. If extra armor only cost 10 points, I still wouldn't take it. I'd take it for 5 points though.
This exercise tells me that extra armor is too expensive for its use. Put extra armor on 2 rhinos and you are already 5 points shy of just getting another rhino!
I can always find a better way to spend those 15 points.
I seem to find EA valuable each and every game I use it in. As I said, I simply disagree with the assessment that Rhinos and Razorbacks are unfit platforms for EA.
|
Mannahnin wrote:A lot of folks online (and in emails in other parts of life) use pretty mangled English. The idea is that it takes extra effort and time to write properly, and they’d rather save the time. If you can still be understood, what’s the harm? While most of the time a sloppy post CAN be understood, the use of proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling is generally seen as respectable and desirable on most forums. It demonstrates an effort made to be understood, and to make your post an easy and pleasant read. By making this effort, you can often elicit more positive responses from the community, and instantly mark yourself as someone worth talking to.
insaniak wrote: Every time someone threatens violence over the internet as a result of someone's hypothetical actions at the gaming table, the earth shakes infinitisemally in its orbit as millions of eyeballs behind millions of monitors all roll simultaneously.
|
|
|
|
|
2010/01/05 08:10:19
Subject: Re:Question on extra armour on tanks ECT.
|
|
Angered Reaver Arena Champion
|
Well, we will have to agree to disagree then. I encourage anyone I would play against to take extra armor on all vehicles so that I have less vehicles to blow up.
|
Sangfroid Marines 5000 pts
Wych Cult 2000
Tau 2000 |
|
|
|
|
2010/01/05 17:45:54
Subject: Question on extra armour on tanks ECT.
|
|
Hanging Out with Russ until Wolftime
|
EA is not pointless, not by a long shot.
It has, however, become less useful on everything since it trippled in cost. Now you use it only where needed, which is on Land Raiders and Dreadnoughts. Land Raiders so they get their Cargo where it needs to be without losing a turn and Dreadnoughts (especially if they drop pod) so they can assault.
|
Got 40k Rules Question? Send an e-mail to Gwar! for your Confidential Rules Queries.
Please do not PM me unless really necessary. I much prefer e-mail. 
Need it Answered RIGHT NOW!? Ring me on Skype: "gwar.the.trolle"
Looking to play some Vassal? Ring me for a game!
Download The Unofficial FAQs by Gwar! here! (Dark Eldar Draft FAQ v1.0 released 04/Nov/2010! Download it before the Pandas eat it all!) |
|
|
|
|
2010/01/05 17:56:53
Subject: Question on extra armour on tanks ECT.
|
|
Never-Miss Nightwing Pilot
|
With extra armour you don't take it because you think its useless, but then you realise that your dreadnoght that really needs to move can't, but would have been able to if it had extra armour.
Then you get really annoyed because it was a critical point in the battle.
I've seen many people do this and get annoyed  .
|
"The stars themselves once lived and died at our command yet you still dare oppose our will. "-Farseer Mirehn Biellann
Armies at 'The Stand-still Point':
Cap'n Waaagggh's warband (Fantasy Orcs)  2250pts. Waaagghhh! in full flow... W-D-L=10-3-3
Hive Fleet Leviathan Strand  1500pts. W-D-L=7-1-2 Nom.
Eldar armies of various sizes  W-D-L 26-6-3
|
|
|
|
|
2010/01/05 17:58:49
Subject: Re:Question on extra armour on tanks ECT.
|
|
Mekboy Hammerin' Somethin'
|
I don't put EA on Rhinos or Razorback just cause most of the time they are slagged when they get hit anyways due to the fact they get penetrating hits more often, EA on a Land Raider is different story tho
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010/01/05 18:56:05
Subject: Question on extra armour on tanks ECT.
|
|
Lord of the Fleet
|
When a land raider full of assault termies is stuck in your deployment zone thanks to a glance then EA is worth every point. Does a dev squad's razorback need it? - not at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
