If compulsory moves are bad, how should the Red Thirst and the difficulties it causes the Blood Angels (because it
does cause them difficulties) be represented?
The possiblity I could think of would be a +1 to engage actions, the note that BA that can move into B2B in an engage must (or that at least half must or something), and a penalty to non-engage actions when an enemy unit was within engagement range. Or even for each enemy formation within engagement range (or within a set distance if you want to make it less subjective).
You also don't need to necessarily make armor subject to it.
Perhaps:
Red Thirst: Blood Angel formations containing Infantry receive +1 to Engage, but a -1 penalty to other actions if the enemy is within 20cm. At least half of the Blood Angels infantry in a formation must be moved into base-to-base if possible to do so during an assault.
You could also do -1
for each enemy within 20cm, thus making it more difficult to control the BA the more enemies are around. Which I kinda like.
Quote:
3. The other idea floated around was from the Genestealer cult development and that was gain 1BM as normal. If you elect to charge after the failed roll, gain an additional BM
This could also work, though I'd recommend giving an additional BM if you
don't charge. Holding them back should be harder than turning them loose.
Three replies below:
* * *
Rug:
Quote:
Is it so hard to accept that a mounted Marine company would march from A to B faster than a Mounted Guard Company? Heck, with all their guns Guard have a much longer effective striking distance!
No. But it
is hard to accept that a mounted Marine company would march from A to B slower than a mounted BA company.
That's the thing. This isn't improving Marines to be better than Guard. It's improving them to be better than Guard, other Marines and Orks, and not-quite-but-close-to Eldar.
* * *
E&C
Quote:
Since the Mechanicus do not make weapons or systems that are not STC-approved, the Assault Cannon must be from a STC schematic that was recovered post-heresy.
Two words. Power armor.
Power armor, in its varying incarnations, is not STC-approved. It is notable for not being so, in fact. Nor is Terminator Armor STC approved (at best it might be distantly related).
* * *
Red Sorceror:
Quote:
The Imperial Armour background was (effectively) identical to an Index Astartes article on the Baal in White Dwarf when one of the Baal models came out. I'm afraid I don't have the issue number though.
Fair enough. Thanks for taking the time to type it out.
