AfroCampbell Posted August 13, 2016 Share Posted August 13, 2016 I was just pondering this evening, with the diversity of terminator armour having appeared over the past few years (and the corresponding rule sets), wouldn't it be cool to have the same thing with Space Marine armour potentially? Mk II - no sweeping advance, but have no sweeping advances performed against (represent slower armour, but vets who hung w/ Emp) Mk III - 6++ invulnerable save to shooting (represents increased armour) Mk IV - gain relentless - (represents optimised armour configuration with increased strength) Mk V - none Mk VI - gains night vision special rule for first turn (represents increased sensors in beakie helmet) I understand that that it might be a bit lame for those armies who are super keen on just one armour type... but I dunno thought it was an interesting idea.... any thoughts? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/324702-armour-variant-rule-possibilities/ Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronDrake28 Posted August 13, 2016 Share Posted August 13, 2016 I feel like Relentless might be a bit too strong for MKIV, and MKII being a straight nerf kinda sucks XD it's lighter than MKIII surely? Still, it's a cool idea :) Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/324702-armour-variant-rule-possibilities/#findComment-4466114 Share on other sites More sharing options...
AfroCampbell Posted August 13, 2016 Author Share Posted August 13, 2016 Yea true. Though relentless is fairly situational, like there are very few situations that would make much difference in 30k.... maybe vets with missile launchers? heavy weapons teams.... few more i cannot think of lol, but yea i get ur point hehehe oops i missed a *no in the Mk II description Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/324702-armour-variant-rule-possibilities/#findComment-4466116 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Dallo Posted August 13, 2016 Share Posted August 13, 2016 Rapid firing bolters, then assaulting is the big issue with relentless tacs. Dallo Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/324702-armour-variant-rule-possibilities/#findComment-4466134 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Aiwass Posted August 13, 2016 Share Posted August 13, 2016 Yea true. Though relentless is fairly situational, like there are very few situations that would make much difference in 30k.... maybe vets with missile launchers? heavy weapons teams.... few more i cannot think of lol, but yea i get ur point hehehe oops i missed a *no in the Mk II description Heavy support squads with relentless? xD Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/324702-armour-variant-rule-possibilities/#findComment-4466136 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theredknight Posted August 13, 2016 Share Posted August 13, 2016 Certainly make assault cannon weilding bas worth it Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/324702-armour-variant-rule-possibilities/#findComment-4466140 Share on other sites More sharing options...
AfroCampbell Posted August 13, 2016 Author Share Posted August 13, 2016 lol ok true, i see everybody's point relentless = too far... i honestly didnt think it through lol i came up with it in like 5 min. But overall the idea would be cool right? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/324702-armour-variant-rule-possibilities/#findComment-4466142 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quixus Posted August 13, 2016 Share Posted August 13, 2016 I think the rules in 40K are too granular to accomodate five different rulesets for PA, especially when you want to make them equally valuable. Or do you plan to make the "better" marks more expensive? While I agree that relentless is too much, I do think that marines should be allowed to charge after shooting their boltguns. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/324702-armour-variant-rule-possibilities/#findComment-4466180 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fire Golem Posted August 13, 2016 Share Posted August 13, 2016 I think it'd overcomplicate things a bit. Also, a lot of my models have mixed armour. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/324702-armour-variant-rule-possibilities/#findComment-4466187 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor Perils Posted August 13, 2016 Share Posted August 13, 2016 The idea could be cool, but mostly for skirmishes and the like, anything more would just slow the game down as fire golem says. Also, how would you represent mixed armour? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/324702-armour-variant-rule-possibilities/#findComment-4466195 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fire Golem Posted August 13, 2016 Share Posted August 13, 2016 Actually yeah it would be cool for a skirmish/kill team type game. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/324702-armour-variant-rule-possibilities/#findComment-4466278 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Aiwass Posted August 13, 2016 Share Posted August 13, 2016 The idea could be cool, but mostly for skirmishes and the like, anything more would just slow the game down as fire golem says. Also, how would you represent mixed armour? Mk 5? :P Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/324702-armour-variant-rule-possibilities/#findComment-4466299 Share on other sites More sharing options...
God-Potato of Mankind Posted August 13, 2016 Share Posted August 13, 2016 Yeah way to over complicated. You'd also end up with one being clear better knowing how many variants needs rule and that would probably dent sales of the "lesser" marks. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/324702-armour-variant-rule-possibilities/#findComment-4466396 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runefyre Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 Actually yeah it would be cool for a skirmish/kill team type game. I could definitely see variant power armour mk rules in a kill-team game, that could be pretty cool actually. If done right, it would be no different than the variant terminator armour patterns. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/324702-armour-variant-rule-possibilities/#findComment-4466799 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vodunius Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 Personally I'd either give MkIII a 2+ save from the front 180 degrees and 4+ from the rear, or let it reroll failed saves from the front but require a reroll of successful saves from the rear. Or just treat it as Siege Mantlets from Imperial Armour 10. I'd make MkIV the baseline and treat MkV as Pariah armour from Retribution. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/324702-armour-variant-rule-possibilities/#findComment-4466899 Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronDrake28 Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 MKIII armour wouldn't be made weaker on the rear though would it? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/324702-armour-variant-rule-possibilities/#findComment-4466987 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Aiwass Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 I'll make mk3 like a mini flare shield (-1S to anything in the front arc and also in cc), no downsides but upgrade (5 points each or so). Or just make it Void Hardened armour, really. Mk2 - move through cover (lighter armour) or something like that. Mk3 - void hardened armour Mk4 - standard Mk5 - pariah armour Mk6 - stealth Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/324702-armour-variant-rule-possibilities/#findComment-4466992 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fire Golem Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 MKIII armour wouldn't be made weaker on the rear though would it? No, that's what I was going to say. MkIII would be equal to MkII from the rear. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/324702-armour-variant-rule-possibilities/#findComment-4467042 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vodunius Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 Both the original armour fluff article by Rick Priestly (Mr 40k) and more recently the Rites of Battle supplement for the Deathwatch RPG stated that MkIII had reduced rear armour to compensate for the weight of the increased frontal armour: It was never intended for general issue, it was designed specifically for the poor schmuck first through the door in boarding actions & tunnel fighting who has no concern other than being shot in the face by the dozen guys waiting for him. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/324702-armour-variant-rule-possibilities/#findComment-4467167 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slips Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 Thats pretty old fluff at this point especially when Mk III is literally a suit of Mk II with heavy plates bolted onto the front of it. I dont see why itd be weaker than Mk II. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/324702-armour-variant-rule-possibilities/#findComment-4467263 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vodunius Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 Do you have a canon source for that? Rites of Battle for Deathwatch was 2011, the same year FW released their first MkIII models, so hardly the depths of antiquity. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/324702-armour-variant-rule-possibilities/#findComment-4467265 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slips Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 Do you have a canon source for that? (Rites of Battle for Deathwatch was 2011, the same year FW released their first MkIII models, so hardly the depths of antiquity.) You know, I looked into it and the Armour Mark Cards that came with the Collectors edition of Codex: Space Marines mentions the fact on its own card. Any other source I can find either doesn't mention the fact or is one you've mentioned. /shrug Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/324702-armour-variant-rule-possibilities/#findComment-4467276 Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronDrake28 Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 It seems strange that they'd make the back lighter and the front heavier. You'd see space marines face planting all over the place XD Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/324702-armour-variant-rule-possibilities/#findComment-4467285 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slips Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 Not really since its still self-supporting Power Armour. The only issue Mk III has over any other is an increase in required maintenance since the weight over-strains the armours servos/fibre bundles due to the weight. Also explains why they cant use jump packs. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/324702-armour-variant-rule-possibilities/#findComment-4467298 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vodunius Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 It seems strange that they'd make the back lighter and the front heavier. You'd see space marines face planting all over the place XD That is quite possibly the reason why FW haven't released a generic MkIII Assault Squad - if he didn't land front-first the momentum would certainly carry him over, it would be less of an issue for foot troops. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/324702-armour-variant-rule-possibilities/#findComment-4467299 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.