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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/02/12 16:06:38
Subject: +1 to Armour save rolls for Adeptus & Heretic Astartes if....
|
 |
Powerful Phoenix Lord
|
BaconCatBug wrote:How much would the game break if ADEPTUS ASTARTES and HERETIC ASTARTES got the following rule:
Transhuman Physiology and Really Gud Armour: When making saving throws (excluding invulnerable saving throws) for a model with this rule, add 1 to the result if the weapon being used to make the attack has an Armour Penetration characteristic of -1.
I don't think it would break anything. But it is so situational, I don't think it would do much to make Marines "gud". More likely this would make HB and Autocannons even more crap.
Rather than have then ignore AP-1, it should be +1 to armour saves outside 12". That would effectively ignore AP-1, but also help against other weapons and not directly target any specific weapon type
-
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/02/13 04:07:57
Subject: +1 to Armour save rolls for Adeptus & Heretic Astartes if....
|
 |
Prophetic Blood Angel Librarian
|
I would be more open to the idea with such a condition. It would however be a massive boon to gunline marines yet do comparatively little for BA, SW or assaulty Chaos.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/02/13 11:29:31
Subject: +1 to Armour save rolls for Adeptus & Heretic Astartes if....
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
I'm not keen on the idea of being safer over 12" away, it just sounds like it's more likely to clash with several tactics.
I prefer the idea of +1 to save rolls if targeted by AP0. I also think that this should be applied to all vehicles as well, and that's the "power armour" thing - sharing a rule which usually only applies to tanks.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/02/13 12:02:04
Subject: +1 to Armour save rolls for Adeptus & Heretic Astartes if....
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
some bloke wrote:I'm not keen on the idea of being safer over 12" away, it just sounds like it's more likely to clash with several tactics.
I prefer the idea of +1 to save rolls if targeted by AP0. I also think that this should be applied to all vehicles as well, and that's the "power armour" thing - sharing a rule which usually only applies to tanks.
Except Rubrics already have that. What are they going to be given to compensate?
|
CaptainStabby wrote:If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote:BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote:Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote:ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/02/13 13:34:59
Subject: +1 to Armour save rolls for Adeptus & Heretic Astartes if....
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: some bloke wrote:I'm not keen on the idea of being safer over 12" away, it just sounds like it's more likely to clash with several tactics. I prefer the idea of +1 to save rolls if targeted by AP0. I also think that this should be applied to all vehicles as well, and that's the "power armour" thing - sharing a rule which usually only applies to tanks.
Except Rubrics already have that. What are they going to be given to compensate? perhaps +1 to saves if targeted by AP0 or AP-1. I'm not 100% what a Rubric is, but if it's a different army then there's not even any need for them to be given anything just because other units are being fixed using "their" rule. if a rubric is a marine, then I would say that they should get +1 to saves vs AP-1. (AP0 already being covered by the marines own rules). Alternatively, and this will help terminators as well, give +1 to saves against anything S4 or less to marines & vehicles. The aim is to make them more resilient to small-arms, but if that makes them more resilient than a tank, then the tank needs improving too. Rule suggestion: Heavy Armour: this unit gains +1 to saves against any weapons whose strength does not exceed this units toughness.
slap it on all decent tanks and on marines (and anything else which it makes sense to go on EG Meganobs, bullgryns with slabshields), and it'll make marines much more survivable to small arms, and give strong weapons a purpose of killing tanks. Then the rubrics, if they have this rule, will have +2 to saves vs AP0 S4 or less weapons. this would keep the "anything can hurt anything" but bring back a bit of the "there's no point shooting a lasgun at a battlewagon" vibe from older editions.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/13 13:36:05
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/02/13 14:16:58
Subject: +1 to Armour save rolls for Adeptus & Heretic Astartes if....
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
Sweden
|
Marines do NOT need better save. If regular fracking marines got a 2+, then what would terminators get? 2+ inv and 3+ FNP? And what about Custodes? Custodes with 1+ armour save and 3+ inv? Marines -both Chaos and loyalist scum- are fine with their 3+. Have you ever heard the term "power creep"? If you want better saves, play Custodes.
|
Nurgle protects. Kinda.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/02/13 15:10:15
Subject: +1 to Armour save rolls for Adeptus & Heretic Astartes if....
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
some bloke wrote:Slayer-Fan123 wrote: some bloke wrote:I'm not keen on the idea of being safer over 12" away, it just sounds like it's more likely to clash with several tactics.
I prefer the idea of +1 to save rolls if targeted by AP0. I also think that this should be applied to all vehicles as well, and that's the "power armour" thing - sharing a rule which usually only applies to tanks.
Except Rubrics already have that. What are they going to be given to compensate?
perhaps +1 to saves if targeted by AP0 or AP-1.
I'm not 100% what a Rubric is, but if it's a different army then there's not even any need for them to be given anything just because other units are being fixed using "their" rule.
if a rubric is a marine, then I would say that they should get +1 to saves vs AP-1. (AP0 already being covered by the marines own rules).
Alternatively, and this will help terminators as well, give +1 to saves against anything S4 or less to marines & vehicles. The aim is to make them more resilient to small-arms, but if that makes them more resilient than a tank, then the tank needs improving too.
Rule suggestion:
Heavy Armour: this unit gains +1 to saves against any weapons whose strength does not exceed this units toughness.
slap it on all decent tanks and on marines (and anything else which it makes sense to go on EG Meganobs, bullgryns with slabshields), and it'll make marines much more survivable to small arms, and give strong weapons a purpose of killing tanks.
Then the rubrics, if they have this rule, will have +2 to saves vs AP0 S4 or less weapons.
this would keep the "anything can hurt anything" but bring back a bit of the "there's no point shooting a lasgun at a battlewagon" vibe from older editions.
Rubric Marines. Or Thousand Sons if that helps you.
|
CaptainStabby wrote:If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote:BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote:Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote:ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever. |
|
 |
 |
|