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. |
|
|
2017/03/24 15:31:59
Subject: Re:GW Adepticon 2017 Studio Preview - March 22 - Presentation info starts pg 5
|
|
Fresh-Faced New User
|
I was just thinking, most of the discussion so far in relation to the proposed armour save modifiers has been revolved around how it would equate to the current AP system. Bare with me here, but could it simply work in unison with the strength instead?
For example, and for arguments sake,
strength 10 weapons have a -5,
S9 a -4
S8 a -3
S7 a -2
S6 a -1
S5 and below no effect.
Then perhaps D and Grav could be -6 effectively making all normal armour completely useless, except terminators/centurions/obliterators equivalents who get to roll on the old 3+ 2d6 rule. This would give them an ok chance of saving a D or Grav shot (9+ on 2D6).
(I know Grav is in theory supposed to be more effective in relation to how good the armour is but I'm not sure anyone would mind if Grav was given a small nerf vs terminators?)
I maybe oversimplifying it and overlooking how Strength in the current game doesn't equal a consistent AP value, but it's just a thought. Perhaps those examples like Thousand Sons AP3 bolters could be reflected on the dataslates/scrolls bespoke rules?
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/03/24 15:34:47
|
|
|
|
2017/03/24 15:43:53
Subject: GW Adepticon 2017 Studio Preview - March 22 - Presentation info starts pg 5
|
|
Grisly Ghost Ark Driver
|
Your example implies the all or nothing system. Heavy bolters would get nothing against MEQ. The autocannon reduces save by 1 and thus may as well be Ap3 because it just turned power armor from 3+ to 4+ and now the autocannon penetrates the armor.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/24 15:44:07
|
|
|
|
2017/03/24 15:54:34
Subject: GW Adepticon 2017 Studio Preview - March 22 - Presentation info starts pg 5
|
|
Posts with Authority
I'm from the future. The future of space
|
-Loki- wrote:not wanting to dig through it and reading 'sigmarising of 40k', can someone explain what GW announced? GW announced the sigmarizing of 40k Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:We still have no idea what 8th Ed is going to look like. That's a really strange thing to say given we know the direction the GW design team is going by looking at Age of Sigmar, reading their statements about the success of the General's handbook and how everything they're talking about on their own community site and at their own presentation is pretty much stuff Age of Sigmar players find instantly recognizable. If you replaced every reference to 40k with a reference to fantasy this presentation could be about Age of Sigmar and be 100% accurate. Some times extreme skepticism is just a form of denial. "We still have no idea!" yeah, right... All we know is a handful of things they'd like to include, and they hope it'll all be done and ready for release around Adepticon next year. Large productions can't turn on a dime. If GW wants the new 40k in people's hand a year from now, most of the design and development work needs to be pretty much done. Things are likely already locked in place. If they say "we'd like to include" they mean they are going to include. You need to get things to printers, get them back to your distribution channel and do all the promotional material work. If it's a year out, then GW has already got this settled.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/24 15:55:38
Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better. |
|
|
|
2017/03/24 16:06:53
Subject: Re:GW Adepticon 2017 Studio Preview - March 22 - Presentation info starts pg 5
|
|
Khorne Chosen Marine Riding a Juggernaut
|
Souljet wrote:I was just thinking, most of the discussion so far in relation to the proposed armour save modifiers has been revolved around how it would equate to the current AP system. Bare with me here, but could it simply work in unison with the strength instead?
For example, and for arguments sake,
strength 10 weapons have a -5,
S9 a -4
S8 a -3
S7 a -2
S6 a -1
S5 and below no effect.
This is actually how it used to work in 2ed but it was -3 across the board (in general).
e.g. s5 was -2 s4 was -1
edit: actually thats not correct i just checked my old rule book! the above was more of a guideline it varied quite a bit e.g. a plasma pistol was s6 but -1! Multi melta was s8 but -4
lol lasguns were -1... marines needed a 4+ save vs lasguns oh guard... those were the days
The best thing i could come up with without adding a new stat to every weapons was to take the weapon's AP off 6 for the modifier
e.g. boltgun -1, meltagun -5, lascannon -4 etc etc
The problem is anything with a good armour save e.g. marines is going to suffer from all but the mildest armour mod rules and owing to the number of weapons you cannot be mild as its kinda pointless. e,g, as it stands marines are 3+ golden against all stuff until its ap3 when you add in armour mods then it'll have to be a wide spectrum of minuses assigned to weapons to feel like it means anything so marines are only going to get worse with such as system.... unless said system incorporated the target's armour into the modifier 'somehow'
|
|
This message was edited 9 times. Last update was at 2017/03/24 16:40:29
|
|
|
|
2017/03/24 16:26:45
Subject: GW Adepticon 2017 Studio Preview - March 22 - Presentation info starts pg 5
|
|
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor
Gathering the Informations.
|
Your example was, to put it gently, not great.
You use the example of an Autocannon and a Heavy Bolter, both of which are still going to allow those Sisters to have a save.
Try the same math against a Scion or Skitarii. It doesn't matter then, because they get no save.
That is the crux of the whole issue with a lot of the lower tier armies right now. AP, as a system, means you're not rolling saves. You're just losing models--and it isn't fun.
|
|
|
|
2017/03/24 16:39:38
Subject: GW Adepticon 2017 Studio Preview - March 22 - Presentation info starts pg 5
|
|
Blood Angel Terminator with Lightning Claws
|
Can someone explain how this whole 2D6 for Termie armor worked in 2E? Did it mean you got two chances to roll a 3+, or did both dice have to add up to 3+ for you to pass the armor save?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/24 16:39:49
GW: "We do no demographic research, we have no focus groups, we do not ask the market what it wants" |
|
|
|
2017/03/24 16:41:16
Subject: GW Adepticon 2017 Studio Preview - March 22 - Presentation info starts pg 5
|
|
Khorne Chosen Marine Riding a Juggernaut
|
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:Can someone explain how this whole 2D6 for Termie armor worked in 2E? Did it mean you got two chances to roll a 3+, or did both dice have to add up to 3+ for you to pass the armor save?
You had a 2+ save on 2 dice!
Do i shoot a meltagun at you -4 armour save
You need to roll 6 on 2 dice (added togther!)
as i remember double 1's always failed though so it was techincally a 3+ if there wasnt an armour mode e.g. someone fired a auto pistol at you XD
terminators used to be scary.
|
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/03/24 16:47:16
|
|
|
|
2017/03/24 16:42:24
Subject: GW Adepticon 2017 Studio Preview - March 22 - Presentation info starts pg 5
|
|
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain
|
That was really cool, and still possible to force failures, albeit with difficulty. They *should* be walking tanks.
|
Stormonu wrote:For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules" |
|
|
|
2017/03/24 16:47:34
Subject: GW Adepticon 2017 Studio Preview - March 22 - Presentation info starts pg 5
|
|
Fresh-Faced New User
|
Latro_ wrote: Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:Can someone explain how this whole 2D6 for Termie armor worked in 2E? Did it mean you got two chances to roll a 3+, or did both dice have to add up to 3+ for you to pass the armor save?
You had a 2+ save on 2 dice!
Do i shoot a meltagun at you -4 armour save
You need to roll 6 on 2 dice (added togther!)
terminators used to be scary.
Wasn't it 3+ on 2 dice? If memory serves me, I thought a double one would still fail?
Edit: I just saw your edit to reflect this on your post
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/24 16:50:28
|
|
|
|
2017/03/24 16:49:39
Subject: GW Adepticon 2017 Studio Preview - March 22 - Presentation info starts pg 5
|
|
Mutilatin' Mad Dok
|
Latro_ wrote: Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:Can someone explain how this whole 2D6 for Termie armor worked in 2E? Did it mean you got two chances to roll a 3+, or did both dice have to add up to 3+ for you to pass the armor save?
You had a 2+ save on 2 dice!
Do i shoot a meltagun at you -4 armour save
You need to roll 6 on 2 dice (added togther!)
as i remember double 1's always failed though so it was techincally a 3+ if there wasnt an armour mode e.g. someone fired a auto pistol at you XD
terminators used to be scary.
It was 3+ on 2d6 not 2+. Hearthguard for squats had a 4+ on 2d6 in the black book. I think Carnifex may have also had 3+ on 2d6.
|
|
|
|
|
2017/03/24 16:54:00
Subject: GW Adepticon 2017 Studio Preview - March 22 - Presentation info starts pg 5
|
|
Impassive Inquisitorial Interrogator
U.K.
|
docdoom77 wrote: Latro_ wrote: Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:Can someone explain how this whole 2D6 for Termie armor worked in 2E? Did it mean you got two chances to roll a 3+, or did both dice have to add up to 3+ for you to pass the armor save?
You had a 2+ save on 2 dice!
Do i shoot a meltagun at you -4 armour save
You need to roll 6 on 2 dice (added togther!)
as i remember double 1's always failed though so it was techincally a 3+ if there wasnt an armour mode e.g. someone fired a auto pistol at you XD
terminators used to be scary.
It was 3+ on 2d6 not 2+. Hearthguard for squats had a 4+ on 2d6 in the black book. I think Carnifex may have also had 3+ on 2d6.
Thats right. You could also get a save on 2d6 for tyranids with the psychic power catalyst if I remember correctly. 5+ save on 2d6 for genestealers ......
|
3 SPRUUUUUEESSSS!!!!
JWBS wrote:
I'm not going to re-read the lunacy that is the last few pages of this thread, but I'd be very surprised if anyone actually said that. Even that one guy banging on about how relatively difficult it might be for an Inquisitor to acquire power armour, I don't think even that guy said that. |
|
|
|
2017/03/24 16:56:11
Subject: Re:GW Adepticon 2017 Studio Preview - March 22 - Presentation info starts pg 5
|
|
Bounding Dark Angels Assault Marine
|
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/24 17:17:02
|
|
|
|
2017/03/24 16:57:06
Subject: GW Adepticon 2017 Studio Preview - March 22 - Presentation info starts pg 5
|
|
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain
|
PLASTIC THUNDERHAWK CONFIRMED
|
Stormonu wrote:For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules" |
|
|
|
2017/03/24 16:59:54
Subject: GW Adepticon 2017 Studio Preview - March 22 - Presentation info starts pg 5
|
|
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor
Gathering the Informations.
|
Don't you start that.
It's been "No Longer Available" a few times, then came back...
It's like FW wants to tease us.
|
|
|
|
2017/03/24 17:03:06
Subject: Re:GW Adepticon 2017 Studio Preview - March 22 - Presentation info starts pg 5
|
|
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf
|
Souljet wrote:I was just thinking, most of the discussion so far in relation to the proposed armour save modifiers has been revolved around how it would equate to the current AP system. Bare with me here, but could it simply work in unison with the strength instead?
For example, and for arguments sake,
strength 10 weapons have a -5,
S9 a -4
S8 a -3
S7 a -2
S6 a -1
S5 and below no effect.
You could do that, but I think the advantage of having a separate armour modifier stat is that you get more variety in weapons. You can have high strength weapons that aren't great at piercing armour, or low strength weapons that are awesome at piercing armour (maybe something corrosive).
Then perhaps D and Grav could be -6 effectively making all normal armour completely useless, except terminators/centurions/obliterators equivalents who get to roll on the old 3+ 2d6 rule. This would give them an ok chance of saving a D or Grav shot (9+ on 2D6).
I don't think we want to bring back the 2D6 rule, it was kind of fun and characterful, but when you have 10 heavy bolters shooting at a unit of Terminators do you really want to be resolving each hit separately?
That's why I propose layering saves, give Termies a 4+ or 5+ invulnerable save that they get in addition to their regular armour rather than instead of their regular armour like they have at the moment.
|
|
|
|
2017/03/24 17:21:36
Subject: Re:GW Adepticon 2017 Studio Preview - March 22 - Presentation info starts pg 5
|
|
Regular Dakkanaut
|
I really think people need to calm down with all the 'sigmarizing of 40K' rhetoric going on. Of all the changes they mentioned they were working on in terms of game mechanics, only the Battleshock/morale one is taken directly from AoS and even then we don't know how that will interact with the rest of the 8th edition rules. Pretty much everything else was either a throw back to second edition 40K or older editions of WHFB (armour save modifiers, chargers going first) or extensions of things like formations and decurions (rules/benefits for fluffy armies) that we have already been seeing for years.
OK, so they are looking at doing the '3 ways to play' thing for 40K too well guess what? That is a good thing, as the GHB is a fantastic resource for anyone who plays AoS in terms of giving you lots of cool ideas HOWEVER you like to play and in terms of AoS it actually moves it closer to 40K by introducing things like command benefits for having armies of only one type (similar to warlord traits) and of course introducing points. The removal of unit types and a move towards each unit having their own individual rules is very reminiscent of AoS warscrolls but again, this is actually something that we should embrace. How can anyone find it appealing that, in order to find out what just ONE of their units does, you might have to look:
1) At its dataslate
2) At the army special rules section of your Codex
3) At the unit types section of the BRB
4) The special rules section of the BRB
All just to establish what the unit can do? If a unit can deepstrike because it has a jetpack pack, then it should say on the special rules section of the dataslate that the unit can deepstrike and it should explain what that means. I shouldn't have to remember oh actually it has deepstrike as well because it is jetpack infantry or whatever, even though it doesn't say anywhere on the dataslate that it has deepstrike, I'm just expected to remember it. By the time you have done this for each different unit in your army it is exhausting and massively slows the game down.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/03/24 17:23:02
|
|
|
|
2017/03/24 17:24:12
Subject: Re:GW Adepticon 2017 Studio Preview - March 22 - Presentation info starts pg 5
|
|
Blood Angel Terminator with Lightning Claws
|
AllSeeingSkink wrote:Souljet wrote:I was just thinking, most of the discussion so far in relation to the proposed armour save modifiers has been revolved around how it would equate to the current AP system. Bare with me here, but could it simply work in unison with the strength instead?
For example, and for arguments sake,
strength 10 weapons have a -5,
S9 a -4
S8 a -3
S7 a -2
S6 a -1
S5 and below no effect.
You could do that, but I think the advantage of having a separate armour modifier stat is that you get more variety in weapons. You can have high strength weapons that aren't great at piercing armour, or low strength weapons that are awesome at piercing armour (maybe something corrosive).
Then perhaps D and Grav could be -6 effectively making all normal armour completely useless, except terminators/centurions/obliterators equivalents who get to roll on the old 3+ 2d6 rule. This would give them an ok chance of saving a D or Grav shot (9+ on 2D6).
I don't think we want to bring back the 2D6 rule, it was kind of fun and characterful, but when you have 10 heavy bolters shooting at a unit of Terminators do you really want to be resolving each hit separately?
That's why I propose layering saves, give Termies a 4+ or 5+ invulnerable save that they get in addition to their regular armour rather than instead of their regular armour like they have at the moment.
Buts that what they already have right now and it sucks.
|
GW: "We do no demographic research, we have no focus groups, we do not ask the market what it wants" |
|
|
|
2017/03/24 17:24:21
Subject: GW Adepticon 2017 Studio Preview - March 22 - Presentation info starts pg 5
|
|
Repentia Mistress
|
I might have missed it:
Was what was announced the only items of Adepticon that was going to happen?
|
|
|
|
|
2017/03/24 17:28:10
Subject: Re:GW Adepticon 2017 Studio Preview - March 22 - Presentation info starts pg 5
|
|
Stalwart Veteran Guard Sergeant
|
Necronmaniac05 wrote:All just to establish what the unit can do? If a unit can deepstrike because it has a jetpack pack, then it should say on the special rules section of the dataslate that the unit can deepstrike and it should explain what that means. I shouldn't have to remember oh actually it has deepstrike as well because it is jetpack infantry or whatever, even though it doesn't say anywhere on the dataslate that it has deepstrike, I'm just expected to remember it. By the time you have done this for each different unit in your army it is exhausting and massively slows the game down.
The other advantage of this system: because "deep strike" isn't a defined thing, different units can do it in different ways. A unit that uses jetpacks to enter the battlefield can have a different method of doing so than one that teleports in through the warp, without having to define deep strike rules PLUS all the ways they change it.
To see what I mean, check out some of the warscrolls for basic units in AoS. Many can have extra hand weapons or shields, but the bonuses they get for that are all different depending on the flavor/balance of the unit.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/24 17:29:24
|
|
|
|
2017/03/24 17:52:29
Subject: Re:GW Adepticon 2017 Studio Preview - March 22 - Presentation info starts pg 5
|
|
Terminator with Assault Cannon
|
JohnnyHell wrote:PLASTIC THUNDERHAWK CONFIRMED
Plastic Thunderhawk Confirmed!
|
SickSix's Silver Skull WIP thread
My Youtube Channel
JSF wrote:... this is really quite an audacious move by GW, throwing out any pretext that this is a game and that its customers exist to do anything other than buy their overpriced products for the sake of it. The naked arrogance, greed and contempt for their audience is shocking. = Epic First Post.
|
|
|
|
2017/03/24 18:05:33
Subject: GW Adepticon 2017 Studio Preview - March 22 - Presentation info starts pg 5
|
|
Rampaging Chaos Russ Driver
|
Can't wait to buy a plastic Thunderhawk. Finally.
|
|
|
|
|
2017/03/24 18:10:40
Subject: Re:GW Adepticon 2017 Studio Preview - March 22 - Presentation info starts pg 5
|
|
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon
|
Latro_ wrote:Souljet wrote:I was just thinking, most of the discussion so far in relation to the proposed armour save modifiers has been revolved around how it would equate to the current AP system. Bare with me here, but could it simply work in unison with the strength instead?
For example, and for arguments sake,
strength 10 weapons have a -5,
S9 a -4
S8 a -3
S7 a -2
S6 a -1
S5 and below no effect.
This is actually how it used to work in 2ed but it was -3 across the board (in general).
e.g. s5 was -2 s4 was -1
edit: actually thats not correct i just checked my old rule book! the above was more of a guideline it varied quite a bit e.g. a plasma pistol was s6 but -1! Multi melta was s8 but -4
lol lasguns were -1... marines needed a 4+ save vs lasguns oh guard... those were the days
The best thing i could come up with without adding a new stat to every weapons was to take the weapon's AP off 6 for the modifier
e.g. boltgun -1, meltagun -5, lascannon -4 etc etc
The problem is anything with a good armour save e.g. marines is going to suffer from all but the mildest armour mod rules and owing to the number of weapons you cannot be mild as its kinda pointless. e,g, as it stands marines are 3+ golden against all stuff until its ap3 when you add in armour mods then it'll have to be a wide spectrum of minuses assigned to weapons to feel like it means anything so marines are only going to get worse with such as system.... unless said system incorporated the target's armour into the modifier 'somehow'
Why assume that Space Marines have a 3+ save in such a system? If Space Marines had a 2+ base save, that would all work better.
Give Terminators a 0+ or 1+ save like Empire Knights and Heroes in Fantasy used to get (a 1 always fails, of course).
|
|
|
|
2017/03/24 18:30:12
Subject: GW Adepticon 2017 Studio Preview - March 22 - Presentation info starts pg 5
|
|
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps
|
My preference would be for a complete rebuild of the rules along a gritty, "tactical" line. I'll settle for AOSIzing 40K if it does away with the current billion expensive supplements rules lawyer paradise. Probably I'd play anything that came with it's own army building rules and played faster and cleaner than the current game with fewer deathstars.
|
|
|
|
2017/03/24 18:31:19
Subject: GW Adepticon 2017 Studio Preview - March 22 - Presentation info starts pg 5
|
|
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain
|
Awwww. Bless. Marine saves may get worse. Saddest thing ever.
|
Stormonu wrote:For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules" |
|
|
|
2017/03/24 19:03:47
Subject: GW Adepticon 2017 Studio Preview - March 22 - Presentation info starts pg 5
|
|
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain
Vigo. Spain.
|
One battletome/Codex/Army book to play my army. Thats all what I want :(
Warscroll its the best form of presenting new units that GW has ever done, period. I'm not talking about the rules , but the fact that in a card you have all the rules to use a model, for free, in the website.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/24 19:04:49
Crimson Devil wrote:
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote:Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
|
|
|
|
2017/03/24 19:05:04
Subject: GW Adepticon 2017 Studio Preview - March 22 - Presentation info starts pg 5
|
|
[DCM]
Coastal Bliss in the Shadow of Sizewell
Suffolk, where the Aliens roam.
|
Wait is age getting to me, or didn't a six always count as a save back then, pretty sure a six is always a pass was in 2nd.
If I recall correctly wasn't it noted as the wild luck of a shot ricocheting at the last second etc.. pretty sure as a Ork player I went from pretty much always having the chance of a six save from incoming fire to none pretty much with AP?
|
"That's not an Ork, its a girl.." - Last words of High General Daran Ul'tharem, battle of Ursha VII.
Two White Horses (Ipswich Town and Denver Broncos Supporter)
|
|
|
|
2017/03/24 19:21:13
Subject: GW Adepticon 2017 Studio Preview - March 22 - Presentation info starts pg 5
|
|
Infiltrating Prowler
|
If 40K is going full AoS for the rules, then we have the stats for Space Marines. Just look at the Stormcast. Most are 4+ armor and normally have either hit/wound of 3+/4+ or 4+/3+.
Still I don't think it will be a full conversion just based off the comment of chargers get to attack first in close combat. AoS works on alternating units between players in combat. I would prefer that to a chargers go first because it forces you to pick your combats and not just pile everything in.
|
|
|
|
2017/03/24 19:26:47
Subject: GW Adepticon 2017 Studio Preview - March 22 - Presentation info starts pg 5
|
|
[MOD]
Making Stuff
|
Daedalus81 wrote:Bespoke rules are a huge plus for 40K. Most models come with some damn new thing anyway. Why flip through tons of pages in a huge book when you forget a rule when you can just have the scroll for your unit handy?
That's a reason for having unit cards with the unit's rules on them. It's not a reason for having bespoke rules.
|
|
|
|
|
2017/03/24 19:31:40
Subject: GW Adepticon 2017 Studio Preview - March 22 - Presentation info starts pg 5
|
|
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus
|
Any updates for news? The main GW panel was supposed to be today yes?
|
3000
4000 |
|
|
|
2017/03/24 19:36:53
Subject: GW Adepticon 2017 Studio Preview - March 22 - Presentation info starts pg 5
|
|
Haughty Harad Serpent Rider
|
Latro_ wrote: Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:Can someone explain how this whole 2D6 for Termie armor worked in 2E? Did it mean you got two chances to roll a 3+, or did both dice have to add up to 3+ for you to pass the armor save?
You had a 2+ save on 2 dice!
No
Powered Armor was a 3+ save.
Carapace Armor was a 4+ save.
Terminator Armor gave you an extra dice when you made your save. So 3+ on 2d6.
Hearth Guard armor gave you an extra dice when you made your save. So 4+ on 2d6.
Other units had a similar + d6 bonus. Carnifex, some psychic powers granted it, etc. So if you hada 6+ save guy, and had a + d6 psychic power bonus, your save was 6+ on 2d6.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/24 19:37:02
"...and special thanks to Judgedoug!" - Alessio Cavatore "Now you've gone too far Doug! ... Too far... " - Rick Priestley "I've decided that I'd rather not have you as a member of TMP." - Editor, The Miniatures Page "I'd rather put my testicles through a mangle than spend any time gaming with you." - Richard, TooFatLardies "We need a Doug Craig in every store." - Warlord Games "Thank you for being here, Judge Doug!" - Adam Troke |
|
|
|
|