Jump to content


Photo

The 8ed Heresy Project - Legiones Astartes


  • Please log in to reply
133 replies to this topic

#21 Alaric

Alaric

    Resident Dickhead

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,197 posts

Posted 04 July 2017 - 07:37 PM

BIg Project. Good luck gents, you should probably be done right around when FW drops the legit ones ;)



#22 firstsilentprophet

firstsilentprophet

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 640 posts
  • LocationAuckland, Eastern Australia

Posted 04 July 2017 - 08:43 PM

Kudos chaps.

 

This is awesome. What more i anyone say.

 

:D


"We are the greatest humans ever born – we are the flame of Humanity where the rest of the galaxy is just the spark. In centuries of warfare, against the vileness of the alien, the lies of the heretic, the foulness of the mutant, I have never known fear –" Sanguinius in the battle for Terra.


#23 Irish1983

Irish1983

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 05 July 2017 - 06:22 AM

This is impressive.  I will look it over this week. Really excited to test it with my friend.  Thank you guys.



#24 drweir4

drweir4

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 521 posts

Posted 05 July 2017 - 11:38 AM

I think there are some conceptual questions to look at up front (which you may have considered / documented elsewhere and I've missed it, so potential apologies!) - again, happy to discuss in person, but being clear on the following will make it easier to offer feedback

 

1) Is the aim primarily to "fill the gaps" between existing 8th ed rules and the existing 30k models / units? There is a minimalist approach, which potentially is the way to go, which just lifts and shifts from 8th 40k indexes without change, and consolidates them in one place (e.g. praetor = 40k captain rules?). The alternative is a more edited "8th ed 30k" which takes the opportunity to "fix" things from the indexes / adds back in some of the depth which has been lost (e.g. I'm pretty sure armoured ceramite isn't in the indexes, but could easily be re-included). In 7th, 30k and 40k units had the same model, but different rules, so there is a clear precedent (e.g. malcadors), and actually really adds to the depth

 

It wasn't immediately clear to me, and understanding which way you are planning to go would influence my detailed comments (e.g. should there be a 8th 30k grav weapon stat, distinct to 40k grav as there is in 7th, or just lift and shift (I actually think you should have a Gravition one like 7th for things like gravition guns as in 7th the mechanicum grav imploder actually uses the 40k grav rule and therefore to keep the diversity you'd need to keep both versions of the rule for 8th 30k))

 

2) To what extent are you looking to "fix" issues from 7th in moving the rules over where they are missing / you are going to replace them? e.g. clarifying no rapiers in armoured breakthrough - that is how most have been playing based on one interpretation of an unclear rule, but you could now spell out things more specifically / fix issues. One approach is to aim to replicate 7th 30k as closely as possible, the other is to go a stage further?

 

3) Balance design decisions - balance is the hardest. It is already clear from 8th that the indexes have some balance issues and are themselves only an interim, so this will likely evolve anyway. But, 7th 30k was balanced differently to 7th 40k and made the games very different in feel. Typically this breaks down into scoring mechanic and troops tax, mission design, lethality and size of game. Are you looking to make similar macro-decisions with regard to balance, or is the aim to hew more closely to the 8th 40k balance?



#25 Death Guard

Death Guard

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 289 posts
  • LocationNorth West UK

Posted 05 July 2017 - 02:28 PM

Awesome work, and in such a short timespan.

I hope you have shared this with Forge World? You never know, it might speed things up a bit for them?

 

Keep up the good work!

 

 

Death Guard Dave



#26 Grifftofer

Grifftofer

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 276 posts
  • LocationEskilstuna, Sweden

Posted 05 July 2017 - 08:34 PM

I think there are some conceptual questions to look at up front (which you may have considered / documented elsewhere and I've missed it, so potential apologies!) - again, happy to discuss in person, but being clear on the following will make it easier to offer feedback

 

1) Is the aim primarily to "fill the gaps" between existing 8th ed rules and the existing 30k models / units? There is a minimalist approach, which potentially is the way to go, which just lifts and shifts from 8th 40k indexes without change, and consolidates them in one place (e.g. praetor = 40k captain rules?). The alternative is a more edited "8th ed 30k" which takes the opportunity to "fix" things from the indexes / adds back in some of the depth which has been lost (e.g. I'm pretty sure armoured ceramite isn't in the indexes, but could easily be re-included). In 7th, 30k and 40k units had the same model, but different rules, so there is a clear precedent (e.g. malcadors), and actually really adds to the depth

 

It wasn't immediately clear to me, and understanding which way you are planning to go would influence my detailed comments (e.g. should there be a 8th 30k grav weapon stat, distinct to 40k grav as there is in 7th, or just lift and shift (I actually think you should have a Gravition one like 7th for things like gravition guns as in 7th the mechanicum grav imploder actually uses the 40k grav rule and therefore to keep the diversity you'd need to keep both versions of the rule for 8th 30k))

 

2) To what extent are you looking to "fix" issues from 7th in moving the rules over where they are missing / you are going to replace them? e.g. clarifying no rapiers in armoured breakthrough - that is how most have been playing based on one interpretation of an unclear rule, but you could now spell out things more specifically / fix issues. One approach is to aim to replicate 7th 30k as closely as possible, the other is to go a stage further?

 

3) Balance design decisions - balance is the hardest. It is already clear from 8th that the indexes have some balance issues and are themselves only an interim, so this will likely evolve anyway. But, 7th 30k was balanced differently to 7th 40k and made the games very different in feel. Typically this breaks down into scoring mechanic and troops tax, mission design, lethality and size of game. Are you looking to make similar macro-decisions with regard to balance, or is the aim to hew more closely to the 8th 40k balance?

Ok. So some big questions to answer here.

 

1) Our initial aim is definitely along the lines of fill in the gaps. We wanted to get this out to people ASAP so rather than spend the time end energy going over very similar territory to GW we thought that taking from their pre-playtested work would be a good solution. Now that that initial part is somewhat complete I would guess that we can add depth to the project if that's what the community wishes (we have a little of this in that vehicles can buy PoMS and dozer blades, but we can always add more). On the other hand if it seems like people aren't as interested in getting those options back then we may not invest so much time into it, but my hope is that using this as a base other members can always build on top of it adding extra options into the various wargear lists for example would be fairly straightforwards.

 

As for your Graviton specific comment, 30K does have Graviton weapons that are distinct from 40K Grav, two taken from FW datasheets and the third (Graviton cannon) filled in by myself to try and fit between the other two. They don't work identically to each other as they did in 7th, but the two examples that I interpolated between were pretty distinct so I tried to blend them a bit for the cannon.

 

2) For this we want to get as close to the feel of the 7th ed. For now that has mostly been copying directly from the existing Rites, but we have made some editorial changes already in order to make some lesser used Rites a little more appealing. For example we have reduced the VP penalty that the Fury of the Ancients Rite suffers for losing all its Dreadnoughts as it has always seemed overly harsh in its current iteration to my mind and with vehicles no longer being invulnerable to entire classes of weapon it seems less necessary to penalise the Rite that much. This is one of the reasons for the questions in the Foreword with feedback on things like this we can tweak them to be more in line with each other in a way that (up until now at least) FW hasn't been able to.

 

3) This is a much tougher question to answer for me. I haven't played nearly enough games with/against the different forces of 8th Ed 40K to be able to do more than theorise on how things will go. True, I have nearly 20 years gaming experience with similar systems and I can extrapolate a lot from what I read and understand of the rules, but its not the same as first hand experience. Until I have a better working knowledge of the new balance I can't honestly say that I will be working to make 30K more or less lethal etc. For now we have made the decision to stick primarily to 7th Ed army building methods and use 8th Ed scoring. Game size I suspect will be higher in 30K generally if only so people can field their big toys (many of which are more expensive now), but that isn't a specific aim. As for troops tax; I'd personally like to make troops less of a tax than has been the case in the past. 8th may help that as troops will be the cheapest way to get large numbers of bodies onto the board, but if not then we can consider other ways of making them more useful perhaps by tweaking the scoring mechanics or by some other method I haven't thought of. Hopefully if it comes to that we'll be able to turn to the community for ideas as more people thinking about the problem will inevitably come up with more solutions than the two of us would by ourselves.

 

I hope that helps answer some of your questions. At least from my perspective of things anyway :)

 

 

Awesome work, and in such a short timespan.

I hope you have shared this with Forge World? You never know, it might speed things up a bit for them?

 

Keep up the good work!

 

 

Death Guard Dave

Well it just so happens that I applied for a job at FW yesterday :P So if I get an interview I'll be sure to take a USB drive (and/or a binder) full of ideas, sketches and other things for them to look at. You never know maybe it'll actually get to the people who are working on 30K.


  • Mounty_chris, Raglan and chopper008 like this

#27 Raglan

Raglan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,630 posts
  • LocationMonmouthshire

Posted 05 July 2017 - 10:38 PM

Good luck with your application and this is a seriously impressive document to show them as evidence of your abilities.

#28 firstsilentprophet

firstsilentprophet

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 640 posts
  • LocationAuckland, Eastern Australia

Posted 05 July 2017 - 11:01 PM

 

Well it just so happens that I applied for a job at FW yesterday :P So if I get an interview I'll be sure to take a USB drive (and/or a binder) full of ideas, sketches and other things for them to look at. You never know maybe it'll actually get to the people who are working on 30K.

 

 

Best of luck with the interview mate. You will be living the dream soon! (Maybe they can pay you in resin!).


"We are the greatest humans ever born – we are the flame of Humanity where the rest of the galaxy is just the spark. In centuries of warfare, against the vileness of the alien, the lies of the heretic, the foulness of the mutant, I have never known fear –" Sanguinius in the battle for Terra.


#29 Tzeentch

Tzeentch

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts

Posted 06 July 2017 - 03:46 AM

Played two small Mechanicum (me) vs. Death Guard games (70 PL) with these rules, but will wait to get a larger game or three this weekend before codifying our thoughts and feedback on the entries themselves. I do have my personal responses on the over-arching questions you posed, however.

 

What should nuncio-voxes do? Do they need to exist? A lot of special case wargear vanished in 8th. And please do not mess with deep strike distances unless you REALLY know what you're doing and have extensively playtested any alterations. The 8th values are set where they are for darn good reasons.
7ed Army Building or new Army Building? Please just use the standard 8th Detachments. You're going to a new fan-made rules set and  'rebuilding' armies is the least of the challenges. If you want 7th rules, just stick with 7th.
Do we need an allies chart? No. Glad they are dead in 8th.
What should Shattered Legions be? My opinion is to do these later, as casual Narrative (non-battle forged armies) games already handle Shattered Legions just fine.
Stratagems? Too early to say here. With the first Codexes coming out very soon I recommend a VERY conservative approach to avoid wholesale rewrites of 7th edition rules ports.
‘Experimental’ Datasheets: Datasheets that differ from Index and are marked as such are not a problem as such. Where they are different just to be different or to simply port over a 7e rule (and let's be honest, FW goes crazy with largely pointless special exemptions) I find them far less useful and an unnecessary hurdle with acceptance of fan rules outside of very narrow casual games.
Rites of War: Don't see the need for these right now, honestly, and would rather they be left out or made explicitly optional until further playtesting can be done on them (we'll be ignoring these in our next games). Until we see the direction that GW goes with Chapter Tactics/Army Special Rules and Stratagems this adds a significant complicating and unbalancing factor vs. other 40K armies. If you are not concerned with cross-compatibility that's fine, but you can't be half-and-half.

  • FinnCairo likes this

#30 Tzeentch

Tzeentch

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts

Posted 06 July 2017 - 03:51 AM

Well it just so happens that I applied for a job at FW yesterday :P So if I get an interview I'll be sure to take a USB drive (and/or a binder) full of ideas, sketches and other things for them to look at. You never know maybe it'll actually get to the people who are working on 30K.

I work in the games industry (not miniatures). I do not recommend doing that unless you are explicitly going in for an art or design position and they have asked to see your portfolio. They will almost certainly politely decline looking at fan material, and if they do take the items they (assuming GW policy is the same as ours) will pass them to the staff legal rep for disposal.


  • Alaric likes this

#31 Alaric

Alaric

    Resident Dickhead

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,197 posts

Posted 06 July 2017 - 05:54 AM

I work in the games industry (not miniatures). I do not recommend doing that unless you are explicitly going in for an art or design position and they have asked to see your portfolio. They will almost certainly politely decline looking at fan material, and if they do take the items they (assuming GW policy is the same as ours) will pass them to the staff legal rep for disposal.


Makes good sense.

#32 ArbitorIan

ArbitorIan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 268 posts

Posted 06 July 2017 - 10:04 AM

I think there are some conceptual questions to look at up front (which you may have considered / documented elsewhere and I've missed it, so potential apologies!) - again, happy to discuss in person, but being clear on the following will make it easier to offer feedback

 

1) Is the aim primarily to "fill the gaps" between existing 8th ed rules and the existing 30k models / units? There is a minimalist approach, which potentially is the way to go, which just lifts and shifts from 8th 40k indexes without change, and consolidates them in one place (e.g. praetor = 40k captain rules?). The alternative is a more edited "8th ed 30k" which takes the opportunity to "fix" things from the indexes / adds back in some of the depth which has been lost (e.g. I'm pretty sure armoured ceramite isn't in the indexes, but could easily be re-included). In 7th, 30k and 40k units had the same model, but different rules, so there is a clear precedent (e.g. malcadors), and actually really adds to the depth

 

It wasn't immediately clear to me, and understanding which way you are planning to go would influence my detailed comments (e.g. should there be a 8th 30k grav weapon stat, distinct to 40k grav as there is in 7th, or just lift and shift (I actually think you should have a Gravition one like 7th for things like gravition guns as in 7th the mechanicum grav imploder actually uses the 40k grav rule and therefore to keep the diversity you'd need to keep both versions of the rule for 8th 30k))

 

2) To what extent are you looking to "fix" issues from 7th in moving the rules over where they are missing / you are going to replace them? e.g. clarifying no rapiers in armoured breakthrough - that is how most have been playing based on one interpretation of an unclear rule, but you could now spell out things more specifically / fix issues. One approach is to aim to replicate 7th 30k as closely as possible, the other is to go a stage further?

 

3) Balance design decisions - balance is the hardest. It is already clear from 8th that the indexes have some balance issues and are themselves only an interim, so this will likely evolve anyway. But, 7th 30k was balanced differently to 7th 40k and made the games very different in feel. Typically this breaks down into scoring mechanic and troops tax, mission design, lethality and size of game. Are you looking to make similar macro-decisions with regard to balance, or is the aim to hew more closely to the 8th 40k balance?

 

 

Hello. So, a lot of my comments will overlap with Grifftofer but here goes:

- Our primary aim is to allow people to use their existing Heresy armies in the 8ed 40k rules. Ideally, a game of 8ed Heresy would feel like you're playing your familiar army, with it's familiar playstyle, but within the structure of the 8ed rules. We realise that there is a grey area in there somewhere, where we have to ask 'should we update X to do exactly the same thing as it did in 7ed, or should we update it to use the rules from 8ed?'. Generally, we've opted for the latter as those are published rules. Originally, with Graviton, we were just going to use the rules for 8ed Grav, but when FW released a couple of profiles for Graviton weapons, we used those rules instead. This is going to becomes quite important in the Legion rules - at the moment, we're porting them over pretty much as-is, changing syntax if the rule works or finding the closest existing rule if it doesn't, but it's inevitable that some Legions will have different rules mechanics than they used to. 

 

- I'm also aware that these are fan rules, and to encourage people to use them we should keep it as close to the published rules as possible. Over on B&C, another thread was doing a similar project, but took the route of totally re-writing all the Legions from the ground up to do whatever that poster thought FW should have done in the first place! We don't want to do that. Keep as close to published rules as possible. In the example you suggested, I'd have no problem giving grav imploders the Graviton rule (for simplicity) or the Grav rule (for accuracy and differentiation) as both exist in the rules. What I'd have a problem with is saying that, because grav imploders were slightly different to Graviton weapons in 7ed, we should write a whole set of new rules in 8ed. 

- We wanted to make sure people can use their physical Heresy armies without massive changes to their makeup. Forcing people to split up units or use counts-as weapons is the disadvantage to just playing 40k 8ed with your Heresy models - no 20-man Tac squads or Rotor Cannons, for example. This desire to protect people's physical armies is also behind the decision to just use 7ed army-building rules - the new 8ed system seems like a logical follow-on from 7ed 40k's Formations and Detachments, but it's a massive shift for Heresy players. It also really screws with Rites of War!!

 

- Fixing issues is kinda the first step in putting it out on forms such as these. Those 'well-known' issues (rapiers in AB) and 'small' balance problems (OP units) would be great to fix but it seemed wrong to assume we knew best before opening it up to the community. If the vast majority agree that, say, rapiers shouldn't be allowed in AB and this was a mistake, let's fix it! It would be great to have a list of these 'well-known' issues, which we could post and ratify with a group of people, and then fix them in one clean sweep. With balance problems (OP units), we'll probably need to playtest as they might not be as OP any more!

- Regarding the macro-decisions regarding missions and army construction, this is something we'd love advice/thoughts on. At the moment, we're kinda assuming people will just play with 8ed Eternal War missions. but maybe the first thing is to write some 8ed analogs to the 7ed core missions? Again, we've kept 7ed army building relatively intact, but have coped 8ed 40k's Flyer and DT slots. We've imposed the usual 25% LoW limit, but haven't copied over the scoring/denial unit rules as these seemed like a whole new thing in 8ed. It would be good to know what the community would prefer in all this - full on 30k 7ed with identical missions, scoring/denial units and no 'Flyer' slots, or something in the middle?



#33 overlord_harry

overlord_harry

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 06 July 2017 - 12:52 PM

Hi, thanks very much for posting this set of rules. I am president of a Heresy Gaming club in Edinburgh and was gutted when the decision was made to stay with 7th. We were about to start this exact process in our club. We are happy to play test and relate comments back to you. There are at least 2 games happening this Friday evening with your rules set and I am sure more will be on the cards soon.

 

A couple of comments agreeing with Tzeentch. If you want to play 7th do that, but for 8th use the new force organisation, there is loads of scope from different armies, our armies might change a tiny bit but on the whole I am sure they will be the same. Allies chart aren’t really required because the keyword <Allegiance> covers it. I think that Shattered legions is a perfectly feasible army to build. For example a Salamander tactical squad wouldn’t be able to benefit from an Iron Hands Delegatus Consul re-roll as they have a different <Legion> keyword but they could be in the same patrol detachment as both can be loyalist.


  • Penddraig and FinnCairo like this

#34 ArbitorIan

ArbitorIan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 268 posts

Posted 06 July 2017 - 01:23 PM

 

Played two small Mechanicum (me) vs. Death Guard games (70 PL) with these rules, but will wait to get a larger game or three this weekend before codifying our thoughts and feedback on the entries themselves. I do have my personal responses on the over-arching questions you posed, however.

 

 

Hi, thanks very much for posting this set of rules. I am president of a Heresy Gaming club in Edinburgh and was gutted when the decision was made to stay with 7th. We were about to start this exact process in our club. We are happy to play test and relate comments back to you. There are at least 2 games happening this Friday evening with your rules set and I am sure more will be on the cards soon.

 

A couple of comments agreeing with Tzeentch. If you want to play 7th do that, but for 8th use the new force organisation, there is loads of scope from different armies, our armies might change a tiny bit but on the whole I am sure they will be the same. Allies chart aren’t really required because the keyword <Allegiance> covers it. I think that Shattered legions is a perfectly feasible army to build. For example a Salamander tactical squad wouldn’t be able to benefit from an Iron Hands Delegatus Consul re-roll as they have a different <Legion> keyword but they could be in the same patrol detachment as both can be loyalist.

 

Thanks for the testing! Good to hear that people are up for choosing to use them and, of course, just drop any bits you don't like.

 

Maybe the 'how to build an army' thing should be a general question we post in this forum - can you do a Poll on Heresy30k? Have a choice between a more 7ed-central system or a more 8ed-central system and let people vote?

 

The issue we had was as you both have partially mentioned. If we go for full 8ed detachments then they very much step on what Rites of War used to do, without any of the restrictions. So, if you go full-on 8ed then you don't need to bother taking, say, Fury of the Ancients because you can take a Vanguard detachment and take 6 scoring Dreads without any of the disadvantages FotA used to give, and also combine them with other detachments. So, this either means we need to drop Rites of War entirely (as Tzeentch suggests) or turn them into something very different (say, stratagems, but lets not wade into that so soon!).

We thought people would be MORE annoyed if we just ditched Rites of War because the choice of Rite and it's way of 'theming' your army with both advantages and disadvantages are something Heresy players quite like. Hence, it was just easier to stick to 7ed army-building. But maybe that's the wrong choice.

 

I also think it would be interesting to see what happens when the Space Marine Codex comes out - if they adopt some system which is similar in flavour to Rites of War and it works then fuck it - use that!!
 

Poll!!

 

EDIT: Just had a thought about Tzeentch's comment about being 'half and half' vs other 40k armies. Maybe we need to make clearer the separation between the 'building an army' rules and the army list itself? So much like FW did, all the Army Building stuff which will be common to all armies goes in a 'Battles in the Age of Darkness' section, which has a foreword like "If playing a game set in the Age of Darkness then use the following rules to build your army". Rites of War could also have a similar foreword. This way, using the army list as-is and 'playing a Heresy game' are explicitly different things - just like before, when you would either ask your Ork opponent to build an 'Age of Darkness' list, or just play with all his 40k formations.



#35 FinnCairo

FinnCairo

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 579 posts
  • LocationP-dence, Rhodey

Posted 06 July 2017 - 04:13 PM

Perhaps sticking with 8th detachments is the route for now, see what the forthcoming Marine codex signals for what lies ahead.
 
As mentioned you can pretty much build any fluffy force you want using the 8th detachments.
 
"Rites" can be as simple as adding a bonus +1 Command Point for certain "favored" detachments and maybe a penalty for others. As well as perhaps requiring a certain detachment to start with.
 
Deathguard or Iron Warriors maybe get +1 Command Point for using Spearhead, and zero, nada, zip for using Outriders, for example.
 
This way you use a common pool to balance things.
 
Legion "flavor" could then later (after the basic "Grey" legions list is nailed down) come from specific strategems and such.
 
Kudos on the killer effort and layout! Having this all in one place is quite handy. I expect it'll spread across the internet pretty quickly.

Scene: Final turn of the old ass Horus Heresy boardgame.
 
Imperial Player: "I put the Emperor in Sky Fortress and escape your uber assault. Oh, look the Dark Angels have arrived in orbit."
 
Traitor Player: "Goddamn you Sky Fortress!"
 
Istvaan III Death Guard here.
Mechanicum-oathed House Col'Khak Knights paint log here.
Fairly erratic, always ongoing Istvaan III survivors/Shattered Legions paint log here.

Equally erratic Adeptus Custodes golden mans adventure paint log here.


#36 McMurphy

McMurphy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 89 posts
  • LocationBristol - uk

Posted 06 July 2017 - 04:57 PM

Looks great.

Techmarine covenant. Instead of an option to be equipped with a conversion Beamer with the 40k profile you have a c-beam cannon with a different profile. Is this intentional?

#37 Penddraig

Penddraig

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,321 posts
  • LocationArlesey, Bedfordshire

Posted 06 July 2017 - 08:47 PM

A point I would make is that the Age of Darkness is an expansion to 40k. This means there will, and should, be differences between the core rulebook and the expansion rules.

Some of the key differences between AoD and the core rules were the Force Organisation tables, restrictions on LoW and the Rites of War. Whilst the detachments in 40k are extremely good, and I am highly in favour of them over the old 40k Formations, do they also reflect an Imperium force of the late Great Crusade / early Heresy?

We must remember that effectively the AoD rules are a historical wargame that reflects Imperial forces of a particular time, rather than representing all the armies of the 41st Millenium. The 8th ed. detachments allow armies to be created for Eldar, Necron, Ork and all the other forces involved in those rules and period. The AoD supplement allows differentiation between the Legions, Mechanicum and Army forces by the use of the RoW modifying the basic FoC of which the basic structure reflects how Imperial forces were structured at that point of Imperial history. Armies like Militia and Solar Auxilia that don't have ways of adapting their FoC reflect a more rigid adherence to the structures of the army; Legions reflect their preferred styles through RoW or Legiones Astartes rules to show that on the table.

A great deal is made of how HH players are narrative-driven and create armies based on the background of their force. A removal of the RoW limits that beyond narrative games (which have a massive place) but players need some standardisation for matched play. Reducing RoW to simple Command Points devalues the AoD supplement, and the RoW-concept, to just another game of 40k with the risk of no distinct character beyond that of Astartes vs. Astartes. It would bring it in-line with playing the Badab War for example.

A second consideration is that several people have built, painted and planned armies around the use of certain RoW. Not all of these can be replicated with the 8th ed. detachments or core rules. By removal of these RoW, there is the risk on invalidating a possibly large portion of peoples' armies. Yes, it's easy to shrug and say, 'well, that's the new rules', but if you are one of those people who have spent possibly hundreds of pounds plus time building and painting, it could be difficult to accept.
  • Pashukanist likes this
"Let us speak now of the death of kings..." - Richard II
Sons of Horus 131st Company "The Kingslayers" http://aus30k.com/30...itle=L-XVI-3752
"Better to reign in Hell then serve in Heaven!" - John Milton, Paradise Lost

#38 Noserenda

Noserenda

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 66 posts

Posted 06 July 2017 - 09:50 PM

Great work so far guys, though id look to swing more towards 8ths clean lines on some things, though i suppose we shall have to see what the codexes bring before we know exactly what shape thatll take! 

Personally id strip Rites of War right back to the bare bones of giving interesting abilities or extra options and stick with the base 8th ed FOCs, it removes a lot of the more superfluous RoW off the bat which could be otherwise easily replicated and vastly simplifies the system. It also means more resources available to look at the RoW people largely care about, the oddball organisations and the Legion idiosyncrasies. You could balance the more involved RoW with a possible command point penalty?

So for example Orbital Assault becomes roughly: 

Units can take a Drop pod (And variants) as a Dedicated transport
Terminators get the new Teleport rule
But
All units must Fly or Deepstrike equiv (Maybe just a list of units like the Deathguard/Ksons get?) 
No Fortifications allowed

While Creeping death could be roughly:

Infantry models count as in cover when more than 12" away
Roll for PLant terrain at the start of the game on a 4+ it offers no cover benefits
All frag weapons can +1 Strength against non vehicles
But
Deathguard Traitors only
Must include a Siege Breaker
Must be the attacker where able
May not include Fortifications or Units without the Deathguard Legion Trait.
-2 Command Points

Working from shoddy memory and plucking numbers out the sky :D 



#39 Valnir

Valnir

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 06 July 2017 - 11:01 PM

Amazing rules. Are there going to be rules for the different Legions?

#40 Darog

Darog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 265 posts
  • LocationMoscow

Posted 07 July 2017 - 05:28 AM

Many thnks!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users