Jump to content

Welcome to The Bolter and Chainsword
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Rumor: Superheavy/Gargantuan Survivability


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
92 replies to this topic

#26
Putrid Choir

Putrid Choir

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 851 posts
Not when the infantry soldier is in a different direction or completely hidden from sight compared to the does not have to be an infantry just 9w or less character (RG is a monster not infantry), that's not difficult at all to differentiate them. But that's a topic for a different thread, I was more using the whole character thing as an example for why 18w+ characters need something in the form of survivability.

I will agree for a full knight army the suggested rumor would be broken. My bigger concern is for the 18w Daemon primarchs who in mono non souped armies get blown off the table rather easily. Perhaps what Grimdark_Garage suggested is the best solution, only applying to characters, that way it could not be abused.

Edit: Grammar again.

Edited by Putrid Choir, 28 June 2020 - 07:52 AM.

  • Dracos likes this

#27
MARK0SIAN

MARK0SIAN

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,895 posts

It should be difficult to pick out an infantry character amongst a number of similar shaped models on the battlefield compared to shooting at a two hundred foot tall warmachine suddenly being invulnerable because it took [X] amount of wounds. Knights already ruled the field in 8e for a good period of the game. Go ask Brandon Grant about the effectiveness of one Knight on the field. Knights are fine when they aren't used by a point and click player.

I agree that the rule is silly in its effects. However I think it only fair to acknowledge that (based on what we know) Knights will be weaker in 9th than they were in 8th:

1) They can still be shot from anywhere on the board, including from the aerial of a tank through three windows and a crack in the wall.
2) They, however, cannot return fire in the same way and have their visibility blocked a lot more by the more abstract terrain rules
3) Changes to blast weapons will only be of marginal improvement to them against 50% of armies on the table because many of their blast weapons already roll 2 dice for the number of shots so the guaranteed minimum of three isn’t a big improvement. It only becomes a big improvement against hordes.
4) They’re not an army with lots of fat they can trim to absorb the upcoming points increase, meaning even a 5% increase is likely to result in the loss of a model in an army with a very low model count.
5) Having a unit sit out their turn to perform one of these mission specific ‘actions’ will rarely be practical with so few units on the table.

Don’t get me wrong, I agree with you that it’s stupid because the rumoured rule can make large parts of an opposing army obsolete, it’s not a fair way to do it. However, I do support the intent behind the rule which is to give the units some more survivability in a game where it’s laughably easy to wipe them out really quickly, especially if we’re talking about a LoW like a baneblade with no invulnerable save.

Edited by MARK0SIAN, 28 June 2020 - 08:10 AM.

gallery_86689_11936_21517.pngsml_gallery_48988_16053_22349.png


#28
WarriorFish

WarriorFish

    ++ PRÆFECT SOCIORUM ++

  • +++ADMINISTRATUM+++
  • 22,996 posts
  • Location:Blighty
  • Faction: Hunter Legion

This is an interesting rumour, I agree that SHs could do with something to help out but not all SHs are created equal... While this seems quite possible and even reasonable in many respects the issue I have is of course where it doesn't - not every army has access to every phase equally. I agree that spreading such a rule out across the turn feels like a fairer way of handling it - more or less the same result for armies with more capable phases, but gives more focused armies a shot at keeping up :)

 

We'll need to wait and see as ever, but I'm hoping that it gives all armies a fair result - including Knight armies of course.


  • Juggernut likes this

gallery_48988_15465_8206.pnggallery_30308_9518_1551.pnggallery_30308_3239_3185.pnggallery_30308_9518_17558.pnggallery_30308_3239_193.pnggallery_30308_3239_17729.png
Painting Oaths Completed:
gallery_30308_3239_28.gifgallery_30308_3239_28.gifgallery_30308_3239_102.gifgallery_30308_3239_84.gifgallery_30308_3239_42.gifgallery_30308_3239_102.gifgallery_30308_3239_102.gifgallery_30308_3239_102.gifgallery_30308_3239_102.gifgallery_30308_3239_42.gifgallery_30308_3239_28.gifgallery_30308_3239_102.gifgallery_30308_3239_42.gifgallery_30308_3239_102.gifgallery_30308_3239_102.gif
gallery_30308_3239_42.gifgallery_30308_3239_102.gifgallery_30308_3239_42.gif
In the grim predictability of online 40k, there can be only Sun Tzu quotes

SM Ironclad | IG Stormies | =][= Stormies | AM Armigers

CSM Defiler | TSons Rubrics | Daemons Daemonettes

DE Warriors | Tyranids Genestealers


#29
sairence

sairence

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 734 posts
Honestly...I like it if done in limited fashion. Maybe one superheavy per army as a pregame strat.

It would make bringing a Baneblade less of a gamble. Currently, if you go 2nd it will be dead before ever firing a shot, because it has no invun or FNP. If you go first you get one effective round of shooting before it's dead or crippled.

It would also make it more palpable to invest the CP into unlocking the expensive detachment.
  • Juggernut and Lord Blackwood like this
gallery_30308_9518_8251.png

#30
Juggernut

Juggernut

    ++ MEDICAE MONTANEA ++

  • ++ MODERATI ++
  • 6,751 posts
  • Location:Big Sky Country
  • Faction: All Things Khornate
Today’s article is about chaos knights, and we’ll get more details about CP/detachments, at the very least. Couldn’t say, about this rumor. So little evidence atm.

A USR that applies if only one superheavy is in the army could make sense, though still have issues.

Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image


#31
Dont-Be-Haten

Dont-Be-Haten

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 2,794 posts
  • Location:Birmingham, Alabama
  • Faction: Carmine Blades
Well, I've never agreed that a 5 wound model worth a third of the points it should take to one shot a 24+ wound model in a single phase is able to do so. Hard capping damage per phase to things like superheavies is surely welcome. And better for the game.

Knight purist lists are already limited on models and objective based points, they should be much harder to shift. And they just haven't felt like that for the dying throws of 8th.

I have a house worth of knights, and it would be awesome to get to have them past turn 3, or not be so behind in points that I'm just here to roll dice and kill things with no win condition.
  • WandererTheta likes this

gallery_62972_10568_26224.jpggallery_62972_10568_6124.jpggallery_62972_10568_31437.jpgETL_VI_Banner_Dominus_Exercitus_Blood_Angallery_62972_14467_3723.jpgxpyOWpw.jpggallery_62972_14467_9083.jpg

 


#32
Kain Mor

Kain Mor

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 449 posts
  • Location:Denver, CO
  • Faction: Astra Militarum, Night Lords

Even though I definitely agree that superheavies, especially non-knights, are in desperate need of a survivability buff I’m categorically against limiting damage per phase/turn as a mechanic. Especially when we’re talking about melee heavy units, because for shooting armies without melee viability once this unkillable unit makes contact your game is over.
 


Edited by toaae, 28 June 2020 - 06:01 PM.
removed off-topic line

  • Petitioner's City and crimsondave like this

#33
Dont-Be-Haten

Dont-Be-Haten

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 2,794 posts
  • Location:Birmingham, Alabama
  • Faction: Carmine Blades

Even though I definitely agree that superheavies, especially non-knights, are in desperate need of a survivability buff I’m categorically against limiting damage per phase/turn as a mechanic. Especially when we’re talking about melee heavy units, because for shooting armies without melee viability once this unkillable unit makes contact your game is over.
 


Should a librarian dreadnought or blood angels smash captain really be able to do 40 wounds to a knight in a single fight phase? That's really not hard to do, and with the increase to CP makes it more likely to happen.

Absolutely no reason a sub 200 point model should be able to one shot a 450+ point model...


Edited by toaae, 28 June 2020 - 06:01 PM.
removed hidden line in quote

  • Triszin, Juggernut and WandererTheta like this

gallery_62972_10568_26224.jpggallery_62972_10568_6124.jpggallery_62972_10568_31437.jpgETL_VI_Banner_Dominus_Exercitus_Blood_Angallery_62972_14467_3723.jpgxpyOWpw.jpggallery_62972_14467_9083.jpg

 


#34
Lemondish

Lemondish

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 3,571 posts
Everybody is talking about Knights, but if the cutoff is 18W my Triumph of St Katherine will sing.
  • Noserenda, Triszin, Aeternus and 1 other like this

#35
chapter master 454

chapter master 454

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 3,311 posts
  • Location:Fife
  • Faction: Angels of Justice

It is an odd one. Super Heavies have historically suffered from being the first thing shot off the table for 2 reasons: they're a big target and thus easy to shoot and charge AND they are often worth so many points that you often take out a quarter of your opponents army by killing it. This lead to the problem that super-heavies could only be decent or good if they had a arsenal of defence options open to them such as the insanity of a 3++ ALONG with the ability to use top bracket anyway.

 

The only other good super-heavy list I knew that had any success was as close to "super heavy spam" as you could get with the 3 Gallants and 4-6 Armigers (can't remember how many would fit) which by all accounts could be considered the equal to the Plaguebearer spam or Triptide drone control but far less effective.

I mean, I make a point there that 8th edition has been an edition of horde spam defining it as only a few armies had small model counts, with even the most "elite" list still having a brigade in it (before downsizing to the loyal 32 due to nerfs I believe) with the VAST majority of lists that have been problematic being anything that takes buckets of models (Conscripts and Commissars, Plaguebearer and Co., Triptide and their drum kit of shield drones, Smite-tastic psyker spam). Most of 8th is about bringing more models than the opponent can kill despite some people complaining about the kill power of the game which shows that the kill power was shifted towards single target removal which can be seen in the fact that most tanks are jokes beyond jokes in numerous ways and only competitive if again, insanely broken defences are put in place (iron hands dreadnought).

 

However on the other end of the scale, if damage gets capped for Titanic Super-Heavies there will need to be dynamic capping and recognition that any heal ability could be taken advantage of. For example, if we were to cap a standard Questoris class knight to being only able to take 12 wounds a turn, if they are mechanicus it will take a Minimum of 3 turns to kill due to the heal ability taking it above 12 wounds with the healing ability, meaning that knight could fire 3 turns worth of shots and making use of the stratagem would be all at full power (since we now all have 12 CP to use). It could lead to interesting strategy in terms of spreading anti-tank power around (like only dealing 9-10 damage to a knight since doing the full 12 is wasteful so if you get high enough damage in a turn leave it) but it would challenge the power of knights.

When it is only Ghaz being damage capped, that's fine because it is only one model. However when it is the entire army and thus mathematically I will NOT be killed until turn 3 at the soonest, that would be something that needs HEAVY testing.


I Chapter Master 454, Chapter Master of the Angels of Justice, Warboss of WAAAGH Gubskul, Commander of a Catachan Regiment, Phaeron of a Tomb World, Shas'O to a Cadre and Princeps of a lance of House Taranis hereby pledge that I will not take up any further models til all other prior have been fully built and painted to tabletop standards. There is no time limit for this task, there is no deadline. My oath is to solemnly complete the armies I have now, to see it that they can have their glory. Paint will be stripped from the old in need, thick may it be like ceramite I will see it removed so that plastic and metal alike may see light of new paint. Models yet to be, boxed and in darkness will be assembled with due care and attention. For this task I am permitted to still buy the supplies needed to do my task but not one model more.

http://www.bolterand...one-model-more/ the thread to my oath. My own reminder.

http://www.bolterand...rk-in-progress/ my own chapter
"The objective of playing a game is to win. The point of playing a game is to have fun. Never confuse the two"

 

 

 


#36
SkimaskMohawk

SkimaskMohawk

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 5,223 posts
  • Location:Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
  • Faction: Raven Guard and VIII Legion

Everybody is talking about Knights, but if the cutoff is 18W my Triumph of St Katherine will sing.


The triumph is in such an odd spot. How do you even protect the thing? Valorous heart celestians? A wall of immolators or exorcists to cover all the cherubs?
  • Dont-Be-Haten likes this

#37
Dracos

Dracos

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 3,397 posts
  • Location:Indiana, USA
  • Faction: Primaris Warhawks

Not when the infantry soldier is in a different direction or completely hidden from sight compared to the does not have to be an infantry just 9w or less character (RG is a monster not infantry), that's not difficult at all to differentiate them. But that's a topic for a different thread, I was more using the whole character thing as an example for why 18w+ characters need something in the form of survivability.

I will agree for a full knight army the suggested rumor would be broken. My bigger concern is for the 18w Daemon primarchs who in mono non souped armies get blown off the table rather easily. Perhaps what Grimdark_Garage suggested is the best solution, only applying to characters, that way it could not be abused.

Edit: Grammar again.

 

This I can get behind. It's why I suggested this might be a Warlord Trait earlier in the thread. I still don't like the mechanic but it would definitely be closer to the "fairer" for both sides we were discussing. 

 

Transparency: I don't believe Lords of War belong on a 40k table to begin with. They are too hard to balance. The swing from Overcosted to Overpowered is heavier than any other unit type in the game. Lords of War need to be Apocalypse only imo ... but I have similar thoughts on Horus Heresy units. I'm an old man who still has the feel bads about just about everything Forge World has brought into the game including that crazy Leviathan Dreadnought.  I know they want to sell more models and everyone wants to play with their toys but just because the games are in the same universe doesn't mean the game mechanics cross over. Knights have been the biggest example of this ... some times as the perpetrator others as the victim ... 9e time will tell.


  • mel_danes, Black Blow Fly, Roland Durendal and 1 other like this
Hope is a moment now long past, the Shadow of Death is the one I cast
sml_gallery_7985_14167_21284.pnggallery_48988_10069_135.pnggallery_48988_15465_8206.png gallery_87434_12256_5320.png sml_gallery_7985_15940_5720.jpg
9e Raven Guard : 11 - 1
Crusade : 12 - 8- 1
Imperial Knights : 3 - 2

#38
Putrid Choir

Putrid Choir

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 851 posts


Not when the infantry soldier is in a different direction or completely hidden from sight compared to the does not have to be an infantry just 9w or less character (RG is a monster not infantry), that's not difficult at all to differentiate them. But that's a topic for a different thread, I was more using the whole character thing as an example for why 18w+ characters need something in the form of survivability.

I will agree for a full knight army the suggested rumor would be broken. My bigger concern is for the 18w Daemon primarchs who in mono non souped armies get blown off the table rather easily. Perhaps what Grimdark_Garage suggested is the best solution, only applying to characters, that way it could not be abused.

Edit: Grammar again.


This I can get behind. It's why I suggested this might be a Warlord Trait earlier in the thread. I still don't like the mechanic but it would definitely be closer to the "fairer" for both sides we were discussing.

Transparency: I don't believe Lords of War belong on a 40k table to begin with. They are too hard to balance. The swing from Overcosted to Overpowered is heavier than any other unit type in the game. Lords of War need to be Apocalypse only imo ... but I have similar thoughts on Horus Heresy units. I'm an old man who still has the feel bads about just about everything Forge World has brought into the game including that crazy Leviathan Dreadnought. I know they want to sell more models and everyone wants to play with their toys but just because the games are in the same universe doesn't mean the game mechanics cross over. Knights have been the biggest example of this ... some times as the perpetrator others as the victim ... 9e time will tell.

I share similar opinions, my group doesn't mess with Forgeworld stuff and if we do Lord's of war, it's just 1, like Mortarion with my DG or a knight with my brother's admech. Not too much longer until 9th at least.
  • Dracos likes this

#39
toaae

toaae

    ++ SECURIFER VIRIDIS ++

  • ++ MODERATI ++
  • 1,663 posts
  • Location:Glendale, AZ
  • Faction: Orks, SoB, Necrons, BA

=][=

This thread isn't about alternating activation. Please stay on topic.

 

=][=


  • Black Blow Fly, Drudge Dreadnought and Juggernut like this

WAAAGH!!! Tortoof, a WiP thread (updated: 10/12/20) ||| Order of the Penitent Saint: A Project Thread (updated: 2/13/2021)
[IG 2020]Index Imperialis: Order of the Penitent Saint // IA: Dune Vipers (WiP; updated: 10/17/19, v.1) // [IG 2020]Index Xenos: WAAAGH!!! Tortoof (WiP; updated: 5/10/2020)
ETL_Medal_01.gifgallery_48988_15465_4633.pnggallery_48988_15738_35057.pngsml_gallery_48988_16308_9366.pnggallery_30308_9518_2576.jpggallery_48988_15094_2398.png
(click on the images to see my vows!)


#40
Dark Shepherd

Dark Shepherd

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 2,367 posts
Characters maybe, big giant shooty units in general no.
Also not every playtested experiment makes it

Also Long War is clickybaits podcast so pour all the salt in the world on it
  • Black Blow Fly likes this

#41
Lord Blackwood

Lord Blackwood

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 3,578 posts
  • Location:Kirkland WA
  • Faction: Knights / VI / SoB

Characters maybe, big giant shooty units in general no.
Also not every playtested experiment makes it


Also Long War is clickybaits podcast so pour all the salt in the world on it

Knight Lancers and Knight Gallants then ? 

Since Lancers have effectively a tiny bit of shooting and Gallants have no shooting cept for their shoulder weapon ? 

Im just saying people hear knights and they think " Crusaders , Castellans " 

When honestly most knights dont have a ton of shooting outside those two patterns.  

 



#42
McElMcNinja

McElMcNinja

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 633 posts
  • Location:Kansas City, MO
  • Faction: Death Guard
I wouldn't be surprised if they went down the same path they did with exalted Daemons, pay some CP and get some sort of damage cap per phase/turn. Then again I wouldn't be surprised if they were taking the new reserves rule as a way to ensure they survived turn 1. As it stands now I would need to spend 5-6 CP to ensure Morty could reserve in.

#43
Mandragola

Mandragola

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 2,242 posts

This is interesting, and potentially good.

 

As a Taranis player, I'd be pretty happy with my new ability in SA to repair a wound per turn. That's far more impactful if they can't just be wiped out in a turn anyway. If the enemy has to spread damage around then all my knights can be healing, which would be great.

 

The thing that makes me doubt this is that they've just done the faction focus articles on knights and didn't mention this - or anything new. Seems like they had a great opportunity to say something, so it's a bit odd they didn't.

 

It also leaves certain models a kind of stuffed. Something like a repulsor, with its 16 wounds, just misses out on this rule. On the plus side of course it can hide, but if it pops out and there's no way it can kill its target, there's much less point in it.

 

It does mean that smash captains and the like would be less valuable too. Can't say I'd particularly miss them. Overall this feels like a good change actually. Wonder if it's real.


C+C always welcome on my Titanic Plog. Should really be painting Crimson Fists.

gallery_48988_15151_9524.pnggallery_45765_12339_6416.pnggallery_48988_16045_14557.pngsml_gallery_48988_16308_6255.png


#44
Roland Durendal

Roland Durendal

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 495 posts

Not when the infantry soldier is in a different direction or completely hidden from sight compared to the does not have to be an infantry just 9w or less character (RG is a monster not infantry), that's not difficult at all to differentiate them. But that's a topic for a different thread, I was more using the whole character thing as an example for why 18w+ characters need something in the form of survivability.
I will agree for a full knight army the suggested rumor would be broken. My bigger concern is for the 18w Daemon primarchs who in mono non souped armies get blown off the table rather easily. Perhaps what Grimdark_Garage suggested is the best solution, only applying to characters, that way it could not be abused.
Edit: Grammar again.


This I can get behind. It's why I suggested this might be a Warlord Trait earlier in the thread. I still don't like the mechanic but it would definitely be closer to the "fairer" for both sides we were discussing.

Transparency: I don't believe Lords of War belong on a 40k table to begin with. They are too hard to balance. The swing from Overcosted to Overpowered is heavier than any other unit type in the game. Lords of War need to be Apocalypse only imo ... but I have similar thoughts on Horus Heresy units. I'm an old man who still has the feel bads about just about everything Forge World has brought into the game including that crazy Leviathan Dreadnought. I know they want to sell more models and everyone wants to play with their toys but just because the games are in the same universe doesn't mean the game mechanics cross over. Knights have been the biggest example of this ... some times as the perpetrator others as the victim ... 9e time will tell.
Just wanted to say I agree 110% with this and that with the introduction of super heavies and forge world in 6th and in, it led to an “Apocalypsation” and “Forge Worldification” of normal 40k and especially the tournament scene.

Having said that and accepting the 40k path we’re on and that they will most likely NEVER go back to making those units “Apocalypse” only, I do think some limited metric should be introduced to increase SH survivability. I think the thing that hurt SHs the most was the change in 8th edition to a simpler to hit/to wound chart, the wound chart especially. The fact that ANY weapon can potentially inflict a wound on a high T creature/unit with a simple 6+ is the problem. Honestly, the easiest fix to ensure SH survival would be to reintroduce a mechanic akin to the old 4th or 5th ed rule of “Our Weapons are Useless!”: ie if the difference btw weapon S and unit T is sooo great, that it can’t inflict a wound period, regardless if you roll a 6. Maybe make the wound chart have a cap....so instead of if the weapon if half S the enemy T (or be greater) cap it at if the T of the unit is up to twice the S plus 1. So a Bolt weapon can wound a T9 unit on a 6, but T10 and above it would be useless. It would go a good way to ensuring SH and high T model survivability but also allow more granularity in weapons S and profiles, as well as unit Ts.

Edited by Roland Durendal, 28 June 2020 - 10:41 PM.


#45
Drudge Dreadnought

Drudge Dreadnought

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 2,807 posts
  • Location:The Void
  • Faction: Chaos, Dark Eldar

Its another patch fix that is necessary now that we've abandoned the old AV system. In the old system, it was difficult to efficiently and reliably kill heavy vehicles, but much more viable to reliably silence them. The new system has increased the problem of alpha strike against big tough units. Ideally, we'd have a system where you could bracket units but not kill them immediately, but that's going to be too complicated in practice. Having alpha strikes be less viable isn't a perfect solution, but its better than nothing, especially for armies running single superheavies.

 

A Ghaz style limited dmg per phase rule is also a good way to reward mixed forces armies. For example, if you had a 30wound model, and limit of 10 wounds per phase, then an army that's all shooting would need 3 turns to down it, but a mixed force that can do shooting, melee, and also psychic/misc damage could potentially kill it in 1 turn. This would be a good incentive to mix forces more, as currently the incentives are to max shooting in almost all cases.

 

Not being able to kill really big units quickly would also reward running lists that are more durable, which will help reduce the current skew towards glass cannon alpha strike lists.

 

Overall, its going to depend on the implementation. But it seems like its going in the right direction to me.


  • Roland Durendal, Lanparth and Theradrussian like this

#46
Waking Dreamer

Waking Dreamer

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,053 posts
  • Faction: Grey Knights
On paper, it looks like a damage cap of half the max wounds per phase seems the least disagreeable by most here. This ensures that the armies by their very design like Tau, which can only do 95% of their damage by shooting (lucky 5% damage in melee), don't have to roll over and die against SH spam.

As long as you can knock a SH model down one damage bracket in at least one very good phase, I think that's as fair as this type of rule can get. You can definitely still kill a SH in one turn, but that has to be spread over two strong phases at least.

Nobody seems to have a problem with this rule for 18W+ Characters (it would be great to see more St Katherines on the table), but models like IG Baneblades don't have an option to become Characters that I know of...
BJyntGN.pngOOq4org.png

#47
quasistellar

quasistellar

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 429 posts

I feel like they could still balance things better with the toughness ratings of models and strength of weapons, as there is no real cap there.  They could also more frequently tap into the titanic keyword for damage modifiers.

 

i feel like that ship has though sadly



#48
Black Blow Fly

Black Blow Fly

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 15,590 posts
  • Location:Unto realms immortal...
  • Faction: TODESKOMPANIE
I doubt this will come to be... caveat emptor.
  • Dark Shepherd likes this
=][= fortis Fortuna adiuvat . =][=
my 40k FB Page:
https://m.facebook.com/Terminus6Est
Terminus Est
Blood and Honor!

#49
Panzer

Panzer

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 21,076 posts
  • Location:Germany
  • Faction: Order of Baal, Dal'yth Sept

I can get behind such a rule and wouldn't be against it as long as it's factored into their cost since other units don't get such a benefit. Like characters have the Look Out Sir! rule factored into their cost as well.

Shame that 18 wounds is just above what Greater Daemons have though. :sweat:


gallery_62972_10568_7658.jpgbFk9acX.pnggallery_62972_14467_40478.pnggallery_62972_14467_3819.jpggallery_62972_10568_4118.jpg


#50
Angelus Nex

Angelus Nex

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 60 posts
  • Location:the Netherlands
  • Faction: Crimson Fists
It would be cool, maybe if they would make it as something like; can only loose the number of wounds to move it down one bracket per phase. So your shooting can at least make it function worse and the other player has at least 2 phases it can survive.

19.jpg





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users