Re: [v5.0] Core Rules addition - Common Special Abilities

From: antichrist666it <seimejote_at_...>
Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 11:43:05 -0000

--- In netepic_at_y..., Jarreas Underwood <jarreas_at_m...> wrote:
> >> Cavalry (the IG ones)
> >> +++++ This could be included in the Imperial Guard army list,
but
> >since
> >> it's a special ability we might want to include it with all the
> >other
> >> special abilities.
> >
> >The fact that they are not subject to the Chain of Command? Isn't
> >really a "Common Special Ability". Or you mean another thing?
>
> The first, but since Imperial Guard and Defenders are the only ones
that
> use the Chain of Command - no one else would use it. How about one
of the
> abilities I suggest in my flier rules:
>
> Independent: The detachment can go anywhere, regardless of
coherency, chain
> of command, Hive Mind or other restrictions common to the army.
Coherency
> within the detachment still applies, though. This includes Titans,
Fliers,
> IG Cavalry and certain Tyranid units (Genestealer, I think).
>
> Give it to IG cavalry, then have a note saying if they fail a
morale test
> and aren't within CoC radius, they rout.

They already have an ability worded exactly like this (at least in my
Codex :P), and it also have the same name! My only doubt is about
placing this ability in this Common section in the rulebook, since it
pertains only to Imperial Guard...

By the way... abilities listed here aren't ALL the special abilities,
just the common ones.

>
>
> >> Tow: May transport a light artillery piece. It takes one turn
> >to "mount
> >> up," and units lose their ability to fire in exchange for the
> >increased
> >> movement rate in following turns. It takes one turn to dismount
and
> >prepare
> >> to fire again. Damaged Super-Heavy units may be rotated but not
> >moved in
> >> the tactical time scale.
> >
> >Isn't really a special ability... transport vehicles can all tow
> >light artillery... or not?
>
> Might as well combine Transport and Tow - that way we don't need the
> Artillery Tractor as a unit. Just buy a detachment of Rhinos for 50
points
> and you can transport both your light artillery and some troops to
guard
> them. And APCs become a little more useful - a few infantry *and*
light
> artillery.

I like artillery tractors! :P

 
> >> HQ (HeadQuarter)
> >> +++++ This has been broken into two abilities - Command and HQ:
> >>
> >> Command: The unit either moves at Charge and fires on Advance,
or
> >moves at
> >> Advance and fires on First Fire.
> >>
> >> Headquarters (HQ): Unit may not be fired at unless it is the
> >closest valid
> >> target of that size category, or farther then 10cm from anything
in
> >it's
> >> pinning class.
> >>
> >
> >Better wait 'til the poll conclusion for this too, but why divide
the
> >HQ skill in two?
>
> Because a lot of units deserve the HQ targeting protection (Medic,
> Tech-Marine, Psykers, etc.) but don't deserve command status
(they're not
> exceptionally fabulous combatants). I'd prefer to give the Command
ability
> to really good fighters and strategic centers, and HQ protection to
things
> that would blend in with the surrounding troops (like medics). That
also
> eliminates the need to say "HQ unit but can be targeted normally"
on every
> HQ larger than a vehicle. That make any sense?

This may be obtained by giving them the Stealth skill, instead...
what you think about it?

>
>
> >> Ambush
> >> +++++ I dunno about this as a separate ability - how about we
> >combine this
> >> into the Special Ability: Sniper. I've been irritated about the
> >slow speed
> >> of my snipers before and this would make them a good deal more
> >useful.
> >
> >Many units aren't snipers but Ambush as well (Lictors,
Mandrakes...)
> >Better leave divided (and not all Snipers ambush!)
>
> Ahhhh! Lictors that start the game halfway across the board and are
within
> Charge range in the first turn! *pause* Um... perhaps not. *grin* I
dunno -
> I'll have to playtest it a bit first before you can talk me into it.

Me too <grin>

>
> >> Immune to pain
> >
> >Obviously! =) But I don't comprehend all the fear about this
skill...
> >The unit will have an appropriate cost, and the bonus don't last
in
> >close combat...
>
> Hm... As far as the name "immune to pain goes, if we had a 'penalty
from
> getting shot' rule I could see the use. As it is, not feeling pain
isn't a
> concept that makes it to the Epic scale - it's too small an ability
to show
> up. I don't imagine Terminators feel very much pain, and I'm *not*
making
> *them* immune to most weapons. :)
>
> The ability itself is very impressive - "Man of Steel - bullets
bounce off
> the chest" sort of thing. I think that's most appropriate to Titans
and
> other massively huge things, appropriately represented by the Void
Shield.
> To give a single guy (however powerful) that ability dilutes the
> impressiveness of the Titan. I'd like to keep the "only defense
against a
> Titan is another Titan" concept to Titans, and not start including
anything
> else in that catagory.
>
> True, I can see where things like Greater Daemons would be massively
> resistant to damage. I think that's accurately represented by their
2+
> armor save and the "negate the hit with a Chaos Card" ability. If
I'm
> facing a Titan with infantry, I'm dead - pure and simple. If I'm
facing
> anything else I want a chance - however small - of taking it down.
This
> ability would prevent that.

I'll playtest this skill A LOT and post my impressions...

> -Yar
Received on Thu May 09 2002 - 11:43:05 UTC