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.

To me this just makes sense with the Void Armor. Even if cost has to be increased, the fact is Void Armor reduces damage by 1, though it cannot be 0 or Negative.

That means units with 1 Wound don't get a huge chunk of the benefit, which to me just detracts from the overall cohesion and logic of the army.

I'd rather have a 10 model unit of Votann infantry with this feature then a 20 model unit with 1W.

It just makes sense with the logic of the army. Like I said points costs should increase though, and the above are not exact estimates, perhaps it's more like 10 infantry should cost the same as 21 or 22 then.

It just makes more sense lore wise and in the general gameplay logic of the faction.

Eh. Squats already overlap a lot with the defensive statlines of sisters/admech/marines. I feel like they're only barely finding a niche to squeeze into thanks to marines gaining a 2nd wound.

Narratively, making squats even more durable than marines against overcharged plasma, heavy bolters, etc. doesn't seem appropriate. Granted, I haven't read the new squat lore, but I get the impression they're meant to be more durable than a human and less durable than a marine.

Presumably, giving void armor a rule that the rank and file can't benefit from is a conscious choice on the designers' part; not a prompt to make the rank and file even more durable. If not benefitting from part of the rule is really a problem, it's just as valid (and arguably less threatening to gameplay) to just remove the -1 Damage rule from void armor and lower the cost of multi-wound void armor models a bit.

No it doesn't make sense in terms of gameplay or fluff.

Doesn't Void Armour reduce AP by 1? Not damage?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Doesn't Void Armour reduce AP by 1? Not damage?

Oh dang, I misread that. I was wrong, thank you for pointing that out. The greatest teacher is failure. Good looking out sir.