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.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Your suggestion makes weight of fire even more obvious as anti-Terminator tactics, since against lasguns, effectively carapace becomes TDA but TDA still caps out at 2+.

Your solution would only magnify the problem.

How so? Sure the lasgun will have more trouble against heavy armor, but it already is a weight of fire weapon against hard targets. All armor is more survivable here without hurting TDAs chances.

While lasguns might have issues in small groups, weapons like autocannons (AP 4) are twice as effective against TDA by making it power armor, krak missles (AP 3) would be three times more effective making TDA carapace armor.

Overall these modifiers make all armored infantry more survivable, except 2+ which are balaced by being better in some instances (against AP 1 and 2) but weaker in others (AP 3 and 4). It really gives 4+, 5+, and 6+ armor the boost they need. It also clearly separates battlefield roles by AP and makes more AP values desirable.

Is there really a problem? You spend points to have guns that can kill terminators.

You use guns on terminators and make them die.

If you don't want to die, take a storm shield or something, or get them in CC where they can't be shot by them.

The AP rules are fine the way they are.

The problem is that you are nerfing TDA for no reason. TDA is already too weak at its job of absorbing small arms, it does not need to become even worse at this role.

 Ashiraya wrote:
The problem is that you are nerfing TDA for no reason. TDA is already too weak at its job of absorbing small arms, it does not need to become even worse at this role.

TDA is the best armor you can get against small arms fire. If TDA is too weak against small arms, everything else is. My modifiers don't even change the effectiveness of TDA against small arms at all. AP 4 and better is generally heavy weapons not small arms.

 Tarrasq wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
The problem is that you are nerfing TDA for no reason. TDA is already too weak at its job of absorbing small arms, it does not need to become even worse at this role.

TDA is the best armor you can get against small arms fire. If TDA is too weak against small arms, everything else is. My modifiers don't even change the effectiveness of TDA against small arms at all. AP 4 and better is generally heavy weapons not small arms.

The difference is that everything else does not cost 40 ppm for that privilege.

You're still halving their survivability against heavy bolters for... No reason at all.

What about something similar to toughness on how it ignores weapons of x Str but instead iti gnores weapons of ap of X.

With no math and just guessing what if thear mor makes the model immune to weapons of +2 or +3 its armor save? 2+ now ignores ap4 and worse (or 5 if +2 is to strong)

if +2 armor save
2+ ignores ap4,5,6
3+ ignores ap5,6
4+ ignores ap 6

or if +3 armor save
2+ ignores ap5,6
3+ ignores 6
4+ ignores nothing etc etc.

Looking at it on paper the +3 of amore save and ignore seems to work a lot better for armies that have very few ap 4 and better without paying out the nose. This makes TEQ and MEQ more durable if not totally immune to small arms fire that "fluff" wise they should be but still able to be taken down by as someone said earlier in the thread "heavy arms fire".

or maybe combo of the two but that might just muddle things even more.

thoughts of my idea?

Fluffy but won't work in practice. Draigowings would be almost invincible which is no good.

Oberron wrote:
What about something similar to toughness on how it ignores weapons of x Str but instead iti gnores weapons of ap of X.

With no math and just guessing what if thear mor makes the model immune to weapons of +2 or +3 its armor save? 2+ now ignores ap4 and worse (or 5 if +2 is to strong)

if +2 armor save
2+ ignores ap4,5,6
3+ ignores ap5,6
4+ ignores ap 6

or if +3 armor save
2+ ignores ap5,6
3+ ignores 6
4+ ignores nothing etc etc.

Looking at it on paper the +3 of amore save and ignore seems to work a lot better for armies that have very few ap 4 and better without paying out the nose. This makes TEQ and MEQ more durable if not totally immune to small arms fire that "fluff" wise they should be but still able to be taken down by as someone said earlier in the thread "heavy arms fire".

or maybe combo of the two but that might just muddle things even more.

thoughts of my idea?

My Dark Eldar couldn't kill Marines or Termies -- at all. Outside of blasters and lances everything is AP5 or worse. Also, what happens in close combat? Are units with standard ccw's unable to kill anything with better armor now?

That said, I could totally be down with having a near-unkillable Archon with a 2++ shadowfield.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Okay, since I've been poo-pooing others' ideas without offering a reasonable alternative, how about this.

Introduce a rule for Terminators called "brace." Come up with some fluffy justification that they take a defensive stance and prepare to be hit.

A brace is declared before to-hit roles are made and confers a +2 to their invulnerable save, increasing the save to a 3++. However, units bracing can only make snap shots the following turn and treat all assaults like charging through difficult terrain (-2).

I means they can get across the board better without being destroyed and deep striking terminators can land, shoot then brace during the opponent's turn. If they try to charge the tradeoff is less attacks (charging though terrain without assault grenades) and a chance to fail the charge.

[quote=Auswin 607337 7075314 2d12bf5fa8bc66f5f5c2174a36141545.jpg
Okay, since I've been poo-pooing others' ideas without offering a reasonable alternative, how about this.

Introduce a rule for Terminators called "brace." Come up with some fluffy justification that they take a defensive stance and prepare to be hit.

A brace is declared before to-hit roles are made and confers a +2 to their invulnerable save, increasing the save to a 3++. However, units bracing can only make snap shots the following turn and treat all assaults like charging through difficult terrain (-2).

I means they can get across the board better without being destroyed and deep striking terminators can land, shoot then brace during the opponent's turn. If they try to charge the tradeoff is less attacks (charging though terrain without assault grenades) and a chance to fail the charge.

So do units who had AP 2 weapons get a price decrease now, if the AP is being changed and they will not ignore +2 armour saves? I mean isn't their prices included because of AP2 weapons? So now they should be cheaper.

Davor wrote:
So do units who had AP 2 weapons get a price decrease now, if the AP is being changed and they will not ignore +2 armour saves? I mean isn't their prices included because of AP2 weapons? So now they should be cheaper.

Ehh, maybe, but a lot of armies get AP2 pretty freely, and its not that expensive. A plasma pistol or gun is only 15 pts.

 Auswin wrote:

Oberron wrote:
What about something similar to toughness on how it ignores weapons of x Str but instead iti gnores weapons of ap of X.

With no math and just guessing what if thear mor makes the model immune to weapons of +2 or +3 its armor save? 2+ now ignores ap4 and worse (or 5 if +2 is to strong)

if +2 armor save
2+ ignores ap4,5,6
3+ ignores ap5,6
4+ ignores ap 6

or if +3 armor save
2+ ignores ap5,6
3+ ignores 6
4+ ignores nothing etc etc.

Looking at it on paper the +3 of amore save and ignore seems to work a lot better for armies that have very few ap 4 and better without paying out the nose. This makes TEQ and MEQ more durable if not totally immune to small arms fire that "fluff" wise they should be but still able to be taken down by as someone said earlier in the thread "heavy arms fire".

or maybe combo of the two but that might just muddle things even more.

thoughts of my idea?

My Dark Eldar couldn't kill Marines or Termies -- at all. Outside of blasters and lances everything is AP5 or worse. Also, what happens in close combat? Are units with standard ccw's unable to kill anything with better armor now?

That said, I could totally be down with having a near-unkillable Archon with a 2++ shadowfield.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Okay, since I've been poo-pooing others' ideas without offering a reasonable alternative, how about this.

Introduce a rule for Terminators called "brace." Come up with some fluffy justification that they take a defensive stance and prepare to be hit.

A brace is declared before to-hit roles are made and confers a +2 to their invulnerable save, increasing the save to a 3++. However, units bracing can only make snap shots the following turn and treat all assaults like charging through difficult terrain (-2).

I means they can get across the board better without being destroyed and deep striking terminators can land, shoot then brace during the opponent's turn. If they try to charge the tradeoff is less attacks (charging though terrain without assault grenades) and a chance to fail the charge.

A small change make it just for shooting phase only then and poison and sniper would still be able to wound them (would have to add a note that any USR that cause auto-wounds still apply as normal to clear things up with it).

The brace is alright until you look at termies that have TH/ss combo. they now have 2+/2++ and really don't mind assaulting through terrain because they strike last already and the -2, unless the assaulter has poor rolls, would take the -2 into concideration and try to move around 2 inches closer then normal for assaulting with the braced unit. Or just decide not to brace the shooting phase before they get to move into assault range and just chance w/e incoming fire.

Maybe switch it to just a -2 that stacks with charging through terrain and they miss out on their bonus attack as well.

 jreilly89 wrote:

Davor wrote:
So do units who had AP 2 weapons get a price decrease now, if the AP is being changed and they will not ignore +2 armour saves? I mean isn't their prices included because of AP2 weapons? So now they should be cheaper.

Ehh, maybe, but a lot of armies get AP2 pretty freely, and its not that expensive. A plasma pistol or gun is only 15 pts.

Reason I am asking is because, I find it funny. I find it funny because when I proposed a system where Initiative is considered for movement and firing, a lot of people went up in arms saying armies were not costed for that. So I thought the same should apply here as well then.

People can't really complain that some things are not costed for something and then ok for other things. Yes I know the same person is not saying it's ok for this thread and then it's not ok for the other thread, but just saying everything should be looked at being equal. If you can change things then you have to consider everything should be costed then.

So maybe that plasma pistol or gun should only cost 10 points then.

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
Still don't like it. I'll agree the Armor Save is a bit antiquated now that things like Wraithknights and Riptides shrug off 40+ shots of AP3 the same as they shrug off lasgun fire that has no AP at all. Could do with some modifiers of Armor saves the more shots are used but I have no real idea on how to do that fairly.

Wraithknights have a 3+ armor save. They don't just shrug off AP3

Davor wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

Davor wrote:
So do units who had AP 2 weapons get a price decrease now, if the AP is being changed and they will not ignore +2 armour saves? I mean isn't their prices included because of AP2 weapons? So now they should be cheaper.

Ehh, maybe, but a lot of armies get AP2 pretty freely, and its not that expensive. A plasma pistol or gun is only 15 pts.

Reason I am asking is because, I find it funny. I find it funny because when I proposed a system where Initiative is considered for movement and firing, a lot of people went up in arms saying armies were not costed for that. So I thought the same should apply here as well then.

People can't really complain that some things are not costed for something and then ok for other things. Yes I know the same person is not saying it's ok for this thread and then it's not ok for the other thread, but just saying everything should be looked at being equal. If you can change things then you have to consider everything should be costed then.

So maybe that plasma pistol or gun should only cost 10 points then.

I'd be fine with that, even 5 points for a plasma pistol/gun if testing showed it worked. That said, I'm also for total balancing of the game and all codices