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.

I was thinking of a acid rule which if you are hit by it you get D3 lose to your armor save please tell me your opinion on why this wouldn't work or I should change something or it's completely fine

 Lord Inquisitor Nathandar wrote:
I was thinking of a acid rule which if you are hit by it you get D3 lose to your armor save please tell me your opinion on why this wouldn't work or I should change something or it's completely fine

What sort of/which acid attack(s) are you referring to? Or are you just talking about acid attacks in general?

And what do you mean: "... you get D3 lose your amour save..."? On what roll of a D3? On a 1?

Not going to lie, mate: this really isn't much of an idea. I'd be happy to comment on this further if you explain and flesh out the idea a bit better.

My guess is that he means 'D3 less', ie, you get your save worsened by D3?

That is what i mean but i think i might change it soon because now that i look at it it looks really brutal

I could see this being an interesting rule, but will need more information on how you want to execute it. I can also see problems of tracking who has what save, and additional book keeping makes it too tedious.

Whilst not as strong as what you have proposed, you could just make that any successful saves made from acid attacks have to be re-rolled.

 taemu_touhi wrote:
I could see this being an interesting rule, but will need more information on how you want to execute it. I can also see problems of tracking who has what save, and additional book keeping makes it too tedious.

Whilst not as strong as what you have proposed, you could just make that any successful saves made from acid attacks have to be re-rolled.

Now that I kind of understand the proposed rule, I do agree wholeheartedly with you on this.

Another possible alternative is to only use this rule for acid attacks that affect the entire squad (e.g. affect a whole tactical squad), or a single unit (e.g. a lone Dreadnought).

It would be a cool mechanic, but the bookkeeping would be a pain. Maybe make it a universal rule that can be applied to certain weapons? So an "acid spewer" might be a flamer with Acid (2). Then, I'd recommend having the acid rule simply worsen saves against the acidic weapon take a penalty.

So instead of permanently worsening a unit's save, you jut reduce the save against acid attacks. Much less bookkeeping, and much less brutal meaning you don't have to charge an arm and a leg for it.

So for instance, my dark eldar haemonculus might take an "acid lash" and charge some terminators. Assuming an acid lash is Acid (2), it would reduce terminator saves by 2, leaving them with a 4+ armor save instead of a 2+. Then, when the grotesques backing up the haemonculus swing, the terminators will still get their 2+ armor because the -2 to armor saves only applies to saves taken against the acid lash.

How does that sound?

That's a very good idea good job I was thinking about something like that after I thought about that bookkeeping

Would be kinda cool as a presisstnat effect like soulblaze and thats honestly not hard to keep track of.

Just make it so the longer its on you the more it reduces your armor permanently every turn instead of d3. a clutch roll can ruin some ones day and thats no fun.

so say a flamer hits a unit. the unit then has a acid marker. if they dont clear it on a 4+ at the beginning of there turn then it gives them a -1 to armor save. next turn they fail its -2 and so on.

it could represent anything from acid to nano necro bots eating at the armor slowly.

could also work on vehicles to reduce AV.

How about rifle and pistol kinda of acid weapons and acid melee weapons make you have a minus to your save and blast and template acid weapons have an acid effect like soul blaze


Automatically Appended Next Post:
How about rifle and pistol kinda of acid weapons and acid melee weapons make you have a minus to your save and blast and template acid weapons have an acid effect like soul blaze

Or just make it a add on to all weapons.

Generic bolter is still st 4 ap 5 as normal but with an added acid effect that goes on the to hit.

it means that the weapon can be used against things that are harder to kill like MC, 2+ armor saves and even vehicles. but the effect isnt immediate so you have to plan for it later.

so its way less of an instant gratification weapon.

I think this is what the rend rule should be. High strength (particularly high strength explosive weapons should get it. A krak missile has enough force to blast open the side armour of a tank, it only stands to reason that if it strikes anything liter than termie armour, it's going to leave it in a bad state. Decreasing the save by would be suffiecient, D3 would be overpowered. Autocannon should have rend and assault cannon should lose it.

I did not think of that sounds like a good idea

 thegreatchimp wrote:
I think this is what the rend rule should be. High strength (particularly high strength explosive weapons should get it. A krak missile has enough force to blast open the side armour of a tank, it only stands to reason that if it strikes anything liter than termie armour, it's going to leave it in a bad state. Decreasing the save by would be suffiecient, D3 would be overpowered. Autocannon should have rend and assault cannon should lose it.

I kinda disagree with the auto cannon and assault switch.

Autocannons while shooting at a rapid pace doesn't even come close to an assault cannon. and the whole point of it having rending is that it shoots soo much that it eventually finds a weakspot or makes its own weak spot once its dented through armor.

i dont think it should have an AP (if im remembering correctly)

and auto cannons are fine for the most part.

what needs to change is the AV system imho. it really should be a T and a Save system across the board. and give Autocannons some special anti tank rules that help it some how. actually i feel like rending should be a Human and MC only effect and anti tank could be the Vehicle version of it.

 Desubot wrote:

I kinda disagree with the auto cannon and assault switch.

Autocannons while shooting at a rapid pace doesn't even come close to an assault cannon. and the whole point of it having rending is that it shoots soo much that it eventually finds a weakspot or makes its own weak spot once its dented through armor.

i dont think it should have an AP (if im remembering correctly)

and auto cannons are fine for the most part.

what needs to change is the AV system imho. it really should be a T and a Save system across the board. and give Autocannons some special anti tank rules that help it some how. actually i feel like rending should be a Human and MC only effect and anti tank could be the Vehicle version of it.

Granted we are talking about fictional weapons, but as you're no doubt aware, they are based of real life counterparts -an M134 7.62mm Minigun and a 20mm/25mm autocannon, and that's the basis of my thinking.

The (real-life) autocannon is a mid range weapon which can pierce the side armour of all but the heaviest battle tanks, pulverise lighter vehicles. It's shells are big enough to pulverise a man. So while a 40k autocannon's anti armour capabilities are sufficient, I'll hold to it that its anti personnel properties are poorly represented. Anything which can pierce medium tank armour should logically be able to smash through power armour with realtive ease. The main reason its been stuck at AP4 is becasue if it were AP3 that would rock the boat for other AP3 heavy weapons (chiefly the missile launcher).

The minigun is a bullet hose but essentially a 6 barrel machine gun, capable of tearing through conventional body armour and lightly-armoured vehicles but that's about it. So I think in 40k it should have a higher rate of fire, perhaps 5 or 6 shots, but tbh I can't see why it's even S6, considering a heavy bolter (hmg?) is S5 and it fires shells which are visibly much larger. AP4, fair enough, you can justify that with armour piercing ammo. But from a point of pure physics, if an 20mm shelll fired at high velocity doesn't rend, I can't justify why an assault cannon should do so.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord Inquisitor Nathandar wrote:
I did not think of that sounds like a good idea

Cheers. Anyway sorry I've unintentionally derailed the conversation towards assault cannons and autocannons...

 thegreatchimp wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

I kinda disagree with the auto cannon and assault switch.

Autocannons while shooting at a rapid pace doesn't even come close to an assault cannon. and the whole point of it having rending is that it shoots soo much that it eventually finds a weakspot or makes its own weak spot once its dented through armor.

i dont think it should have an AP (if im remembering correctly)

and auto cannons are fine for the most part.

what needs to change is the AV system imho. it really should be a T and a Save system across the board. and give Autocannons some special anti tank rules that help it some how. actually i feel like rending should be a Human and MC only effect and anti tank could be the Vehicle version of it.

Granted we are talking about fictional weapons, but as you're no doubt aware, they are based of real life counterparts -an M134 7.62mm Minigun and a 20mm/25mm autocannon, and that's the basis of my thinking.

The (real-life) autocannon is a mid range weapon which can pierce the side armour of all but the heaviest battle tanks, pulverise lighter vehicles. It's shells are big enough to pulverise a man. So while a 40k autocannon's anti armour capabilities are sufficient, I'll hold to it that its anti personnel properties are poorly represented. Anything which can pierce medium tank armour should logically be able to smash through power armour with realtive ease. The main reason its been stuck at AP4 is becasue if it were AP3 that would rock the boat for other AP3 heavy weapons (chiefly the missile launcher).

The minigun is a bullet hose but essentially a 6 barrel machine gun, capable of tearing through conventional body armour and lightly-armoured vehicles but that's about it. So I think in 40k it should have a higher rate of fire, perhaps 5 or 6 shots, but tbh I can't see why it's even S6, considering a heavy bolter (hmg?) is S5 and it fires shells which are visibly much larger. AP4, fair enough, you can justify that with armour piercing ammo. But from a point of pure physics, if an 20mm shelll fired at high velocity doesn't rend, I can't justify why an assault cannon should do so.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord Inquisitor Nathandar wrote:
I did not think of that sounds like a good idea

Cheers. Anyway sorry I've unintentionally derailed the conversation towards assault cannons and autocannons...

Well to be fair st 7 will still kill marines like no ones business and the effect of them making a save is for the most part the armor which is way stronger than most common tanks (in this fictional setting) so its effectivly still an anti tank and anti personal.

How the assault cannon if i had my way would probably something at ST3 with some kinda continus shooting mechanisim that eventually ramps up to str 6 or increase rate of fire.... also pinning.. pining would need a hella over haul,

Ehh I don't mind

The assault cannon is fine. It is not a real world weapon. It fires countless rounds at very high velocity which is why it rends.

 Ashiraya wrote:
The assault cannon is fine. It is not a real world weapon. It fires countless rounds at very high velocity which is why it rends.

Fictional or not, It just doesn't make sense to me that it's better at smashing power armour than a weapon in the same setting that fires harder hitting, larger rounds. I looked up a few math hammer threads and its actually better than a lascannon at destroying any vehicle except AV14. It just seems to me that it has too much love going for it in a system that's fairly rock-paper-scissors. If any weapn needs some love, it's the heavy bolter.

D3 permanently, or D3 for a turn? Because D3 permanently is way too brutal.

 thegreatchimp wrote:
<snip>

Granted we are talking about fictional weapons, but as you're no doubt aware, they are based of real life counterparts -an M134 7.62mm Minigun and a 20mm/25mm autocannon, and that's the basis of my thinking.

The (real-life) autocannon is a mid range weapon which can pierce the side armour of all but the heaviest battle tanks, pulverise lighter vehicles. It's shells are big enough to pulverise a man. So while a 40k autocannon's anti armour capabilities are sufficient, I'll hold to it that its anti personnel properties are poorly represented. Anything which can pierce medium tank armour should logically be able to smash through power armour with realtive ease. The main reason its been stuck at AP4 is becasue if it were AP3 that would rock the boat for other AP3 heavy weapons (chiefly the missile launcher).

The minigun is a bullet hose but essentially a 6 barrel machine gun, capable of tearing through conventional body armour and lightly-armoured vehicles but that's about it. So I think in 40k it should have a higher rate of fire, perhaps 5 or 6 shots, but tbh I can't see why it's even S6, considering a heavy bolter (hmg?) is S5 and it fires shells which are visibly much larger. AP4, fair enough, you can justify that with armour piercing ammo. But from a point of pure physics, if an 20mm shell fired at high velocity doesn't rend, I can't justify why an assault cannon should do so.

<snip>

A quick aside, I'd say the assault cannon is more modeled on 20mm gatlings like the M61 than the M134, and the autocannon is more like a Bofors 40mm/L70 or a Mk 110 57mm (maybe even something like an OTO Melara 76mm Super Rapide), explaining the S6 on the assault cannon, and why the autocannon can hit MBT armor hard enough to bend supports and screw up structural members (glancing hits that actually damage the vehicle).

Heavy bolters are 25mm caliber and explosive, they strike will less force than a 20mm gatling? Meh, I think its another case of gatling is good because people thing it looks cool.

BURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

I happen to love the way miniguns work

 Desubot wrote:

Makes short work of AV 9 in any case!