PDA

View Full Version : Rules modifications: Following Fire and Hard to kill



Hellebore
02-09-2009, 12:57
Just thought this might be nice little addition.

Following Fire
If you roll a kill on more than one dice you may cause additional casualties if there are genestealers adjacent to the original target and in line of sight (after removing the original target). So a storm bolter rolling double 6 will kill a genestealer and if there is another one behind it kill that one too.


Hard to Kill
I have to say I'm not much of a fan of this rule. I think it's silly that a Broodlord is immune to a heavy flamer, despite it killing stealers on a 2+.

I think that perhaps something like Parry but at a distance would be better. Forcing the opponent to reroll successful hits.

Or giving it a dodge that works like the storm shield (reduces shots by 1).

Or giving it two wounds (use overwatch tokens there are plenty in the box).

Or roll a D6 for each kill scored, on a 4+ it ignores it.

Or have the hard to kill rule as is but allow heavy flamers to kill it on a 6+ or something.

I just don't really like the mechanic of hard to kill.

Hellebore

altwaev
02-09-2009, 14:52
Just thought this might be nice little addition.

Following Fire
If you roll a kill on more than one dice you may cause additional casualties if there are genestealers adjacent to the original target and in line of sight (after removing the original target). So a storm bolter rolling double 6 will kill a genestealer and if there is another one behind it kill that one too.



I thought this rule was in 2nd edition maybe?

Znail
02-09-2009, 15:04
Yupp, it was in there. I guess they traded it away for the improvement to sustained fire.

nedius
02-09-2009, 15:41
I think 'hard to kill' is fine for the SBs and assaul,t cannon, however I agree that it's silly to make it immune to fire.

I'd go with your 6+ for a flamer, perhaps with a 'burning' effect (6+ on the initial hit, 5+ if the broodlord then moves into subsiquent flamed square in it's own turn).

GirathonB
02-09-2009, 16:42
I like the fact that t is immune to the flamer. I am reminded of Aliens where Ridly flames the hell outta the Queen, but it just keep coming.

Morlu
02-09-2009, 17:00
I think the immune to flamer thing makes sense if you think about it like this...
SBs kill stealers on a 6 because it can pierce them easily but might only blow an arm off and they keep coming
Flamers can kill on a 2 because there hide/skin/carapace is thin enough the flames damage them but it kills them so easily because it completely envelops them
Flamers dont hurt termies because their armour is proof against it
Flamers dont hurt brood lord for the same reason, his hide/skin is thicker and proof against it.
so its not that its mega stong that it kills stealers easily its because it hurts them all over, however the brood lord is more resistant so it doesnt matter that its all over him if it cant get through his hide

...i think that made sense

CRasterImage
02-09-2009, 17:55
I don't believe Terminators are immune to flamers. In fact, I think there are rules about whether or not a Terminator may fire a flamer if it means that a battle brother would also be hit.

mattjgilbert
02-09-2009, 19:03
Yupp, it was in there. I guess they traded it away for the improvement to sustained fire.Improvement? Sustained fire is now worse (+1 maximum, not a continual increase like before). Overwatch now gains sustained fire now though if that is what you meant?


Flamers dont hurt termies because their armour is proof against it*Any* model or blip is killed on a 2+, this means stealers as well as terminators.

Znail
02-09-2009, 20:22
Improvement? Sustained fire is now worse (+1 maximum, not a continual increase like before). Overwatch now gains sustained fire now though if that is what you meant?

No, I was comparing with 2nd edition, when the rule for killing two if you rolled more then one hit was present. In 2nd edition so was it also a max of +1, so that isnt a change from then.

Morlu
03-09-2009, 09:21
*Any* model or blip is killed on a 2+, this means stealers as well as terminators.

Ah, misread that then...in that case...yes its a little silly they cant hurt the brood lord :p

twistinthunder
03-09-2009, 17:33
following fire is a silly rule since i basically encourages you to jam you weapon.

and the broodlord thing think of it as this: you sacrifice a blip that says '3' on it for the broodlord therefore the broodlord 'counts as' 3 models for the purpose of flaming it (roll 3 dice), or you roll 2 dice for the broodlord rolling double 2s or more, or you could say the heavy flamer kills on a 4+ (2+2=4, 2 being what you need to kill a genestealer so double that to kill a broodlord.)
sorted.



twistinthunder,

AndrewGPaul
03-09-2009, 19:47
following fire is a silly rule since it basically encourages you to jam you weapon.

Not so; your chance of a double is always 1/6, no matter whether you need 6s to kill or 5+.

Hellebore
04-09-2009, 04:17
You can't really 'intend' to roll double 6 though. You fire your gun and IF you get double 6 AND there are adjacent genestealers you kill two. It's really more of a variable to keep the stealer player on their toes. If they aren't watching what they're doing their stealers could bunch up and get killed.

Also, you only jam on Overwatch.

As an aside, I'd completely forgotten that 'following fire' existed in 2nd ed.:rolleyes: I hadn't played it for years. Must still have been hiding in my subconscious because that rule struck me as particularly suited to the game.

More rules modifications, did anyone like the turn counter from 2nd ed?

Hellebore