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.

Hey guys, what do you think of this

Heavy Flak Armour:

- 5+ save
- Ap of weapons must be Lower than 5 to negate saving throw

10pts per squad, no special weapon may be purchased
(5pts per command squad)

Athonian Pattern Lasgun (double-lasgun)

Range: 24"
Str: 3
Ap: -
Type: Rapid Fire, Twin Linked

10pts per squad, no Heavy Weapon Team may be purchased, (platoon commanders/sergeants may exchange their laspistol for a double-lasgun for free)
(5pts per command squad)

So... it's a 4+ armor save?

No, I think he's saying it's a 5+, but AP 5 weapons like bolters don't negate it.

Dexterium wrote:So... it's a 4+ armor save?

No, it's a 5+ save that can only be negated by AP4 or better.

Also, I assume you mean that the entire squad replaces their lasgun with the Athonian lasgun when you pay the 10 points. In that case it's fine.

These don't sound overpowered in isolation to me, but I think they'd be more fair as an army wide change then an upgrade you can choose to apply or not.

Jack

Why?

Why not?

Belive it or not that's not a reason to do something.

I don't think that's a bad idea to represent more a more primitive form of Carapace armor or advanced forms of Power Armor.
I think writing a hbUSR (home brew USR) rule for 'Heavy' and then applying it to the equipment would be the way to go.
something like:
Heavy Armor:
To negate the saving throw of a model with Heavy armor, a weapon is required to have an AP 1 greater than what is normally required. example: A model wearing Heavy Flak Armor would still receive a saving throw against wounds inflicted by a Bolter (AP5), but would not receive an armor save against wounds inflicted by a Heavy Bolter (AP4). A non-unique (ie unique character) model may not increase the require AP target number to below 2+.

I like that idea Belphegor, would be nice for heavy weapon units and the like.

It could also be balanced by removing Fleet where appropriate, for units like Reapers and Scorpions in an Eldar army.

Yeah i agree with Belphagor that sounds like a much better idea.

Firstly, why does that need representing, particularly in that fashion. Secondly, how does removing Fleet 'balance' such armour?

I kind of like the Heavy rule, although I would limit it to specialists. I think removing Fleet doesn't balance it as such, but adds a logical negative, in addition to the points cost.

Or instead of calling it heavy you could call it "Advanced". For example, Advanced Powered Armor. Or Advanced Flak Armor. Advanced Carapace Armor.

Advanced Power Armour...sounds like "Artificer Armour"...

Nurglitch wrote:Advanced Power Armour...sounds like "Artificer Armour"...

Hahaha, qft

I think that the Anthroian Lasgun or whatever, should be like, a 30 point upgrade for a Platoon Command Squad, but it allows every squad bought in that Platoon to instead use that custom pattern Lasgun.

Perhaps Veterans could also upgrade to it at 10 points a squad.

Nurglitch wrote:Advanced Power Armour...sounds like "Artificer Armour"...

It does and if you go that route you could say that Artificer Armor is just Advanced powered armor. So a 3+ that can only be ignored by AP 2 or better.

Again, it's just a word. You can go with "heavy" or "advanced", you can go with "phat". The concept is still the same.

"Yo dawg yer bolters don't ignore mah armor 'cause it's PHAT flak armor yo!"

I'm not really a fan of 'advanced', as this (in regards to armor) could represent excellent quality Power Armor or Crap Carapace armor in background.
A rule that would slow units down in regards to equipment, I think, should be separate.
Which would give a set of qualities to be applied to various pieces of equipment.

Advanced/heavy terminator armor, my deathwing would love that! I think these would be an interesting thing to introduce into the general rules.

If you're having survivability issues with Deathwing Terminators then guess what, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG! Over all though I like the idea of Heavy Armor, not so much the lasguns as this would be too much in a blob squad issued FRFSRF! as an Athonian Pattern Lasgun would still be argued to be a lasgun.

Well, not so much that terminators have survivability issues, but people were saying that "heavy" being a general rule could be applied to other armors, I just made the natural progression to terminator armor once power armor was mentioned. Only losing your armor save to ap1 weaponry would be a tremendous boon.

That's what you call overpowered, though.

I would limit "Heavy" to 4+ or worse armor. Power armor doesn't need it, it's good enough.

Bromsy wrote:I would limit "Heavy" to 4+ or worse armor. Power armor doesn't need it, it's good enough.

That sounds about right, but how many extra points would you have to pay?

and would it really be worth it for 4+ armor?

don't know on points, it'd depend on what unit it was applied to. I know 5+ Heavy would be loved by guard players, myself included. Maybe do 15 or 20 pts for a vet squad to get heavy flak, since it's 30 for 4+

I think if it is to be done at all, it should be scaled to be overpriced for 5+ but just right for 4+ to discourage mass infantry spamming at the PIS level, as it is I don't have huge problems taking out Tactical Marines point for point with a Blob squad. As much as I love the idea the potential for abuse should be curved.

Xyon wrote:Well, not so much that terminators have survivability issues, but people were saying that "heavy" being a general rule could be applied to other armors, I just made the natural progression to terminator armor once power armor was mentioned. Only losing your armor save to ap1 weaponry would be a tremendous boon.

Back in third edition (before they gave Terminators an invulnerable save) we play-tested a house rule for Terminators save to only be beat by AP1 weapons.

It was nice and all but all it really did in practice is prevent them from getting clobbered by plasma fire (as that's the only thing most armies have in sufficient quantity to have a noticeably impact on), they still go down quite reliably to volume of normal Anti-Personnel fire.

Jack

Jackmojo wrote:

Xyon wrote:Well, not so much that terminators have survivability issues, but people were saying that "heavy" being a general rule could be applied to other armors, I just made the natural progression to terminator armor once power armor was mentioned. Only losing your armor save to ap1 weaponry would be a tremendous boon.

Back in third edition (before they gave Terminators an invulnerable save) we play-tested a house rule for Terminators save to only be beat by AP1 weapons.

It was nice and all but all it really did in practice is prevent them from getting clobbered by plasma fire (as that's the only thing most armies have in sufficient quantity to have a noticeably impact on), they still go down quite reliably to volume of normal Anti-Personnel fire.

Jack

But that was back in 3rd Edition.

In 5th edition there are plenty of AP 2 weapons, not just Plasma anymore.