Why would anyone use 2 fuel though? It's easy to suspect that having 3 fuel it's a bit too mandatory. How are the other options going to compete in the wargear 1 section? Doesn't that weaken the customization?
Sorry, to be clear: Assault Marines (loyalists) get +2Fuel for 2AP (*) Stormboyz (orks) get +1 for 2AP Raptors (traitor) get +1 for 10AP, with a Regen Kicker if MoS Hawks (eldar) get +1 for 2AP (*) So, my Space Marine advancement tree says that Assault Marines get +2 Fuel for 2AP, and +1 Fuel later for 35AP. I assume this is a typographic error. I've attached a screenie. (**) Confirmed, not a typographic error. This means you start at 2 Fuel, get a +1 Wargear for 3 Fuel total, then a +2 for 4 Fuel total.
...so basically you want free unlimited roll dodge for strapping a rocket to your back!? and then still be able to fly/jump away 2 times?? while every one else gets 2 stam for roll dodge and face tanking in exchange? ......i hope i misunderstood something
This is right, not a typo on their part. Space Marine JPA start with the +2 fuel upgrade for some strange reason and get the +1 further in, not sure if this is what they intended but it's how it is. As for the suggestion for giving JPA equivalents a 'free dash', that is by far one of the worst suggestions that I have seen, especially considering the distance covered and the invincibility frames attached to that leap, there wouldn't be any stopping a JPA from just repeatedly dashing forwards, swinging, dashing again before a counter attack, rinsing and repeating.
Wha? JA/Rap/Storms still function well at their role and do not need any extra help at it. They are a harassment class......get in, be annoying, and if you can get out great. Rinse and repeat.
@Livaria is not totally off the wall. THQ SM had half price for jump dodges vs full jumps IIRC... not to mention, that game generally handled jump mechanics better all around. In EC with lock-ons... uhhh dunno how good of an idea it would be.
I wouldn't mind if dashes didn't cost fuel, as long as there is a 1-2 second delay on it. I don't want to see people spamming that during a melee skirmish. The game's netcode doesn't really support the "getting out" part much.
You understood the concept, but not my intention. How do I put this? Not every idea starts out great, I posted this idea to develop it. Because people can offer some really good alternatives, or bring up some good points. Take this next quote for example... I absolutely enjoy this idea, and I'll include it in my proposal. You see, Walkingcorpse, my process of developing an idea simply requires input from other people. This is why it's important to not attack an idea, but instead, help to make it as best as it can be, and if the final product is not satisfactory enough. Then I'm happy to let an idea go. This is how future problems can be avoided.
It's semantics, I do not consider gauging problems as an attack, and you do. The difference is only wordplay. This is what I consider an attack to be: To exclusively say that an idea is only bad and/or to discourage any further feedback whether directly or indirectly. In other words, weakening the perception of an idea without any feedback to give.
