Jump to content


Photo

The 8ed Heresy Project - Legiones Astartes


  • Please log in to reply
253 replies to this topic

#41 EdTat

EdTat

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • LocationJust So. Of Buffalo NY

Posted 07 July 2017 - 11:45 AM

Read this briefly last night, First: A HUGE THANKYOU TO ALL INVOLVED !!! This was/is a labor of love. Second: keep up the great work !!! Third: Forgeworld had better hire you on the merits of this alone! I look forward to seeing the Legion specific rules.

#42 Grifftofer

Grifftofer

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 285 posts
  • LocationEskilstuna, Sweden

Posted 07 July 2017 - 12:28 PM

I'd just like to thank you all for your kind words :) And to let you know that we're already working on the Legions, as well as incorporating the feedback you've already left with us. Hopefully the first update with minor fixes/changes will be out in the next few days.


  • Noserenda likes this

#43 FinnCairo

FinnCairo

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 07 July 2017 - 01:59 PM

I've a suggestion to maybe add back the "Unstoppable Fury" special rule to the Contemptor and Cortus (from the FW Index) to at least make taking 2 close combat weapons sorta attractive as there's currently no benefit to doing so.

 

P.S. The larger GW rumor sites finally got whiff of this project, so expect a likely influx of downloads - and hopefully useful feedback.


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.


#44 DaddyWarCrimes

DaddyWarCrimes

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 40 posts

Posted 08 July 2017 - 04:00 AM

Thank you so much for taking the time to complete this labor of love.  I've been playing a ton of 8th with the few things from my old Blood Angels army that I didn't get rid of to make room for more 1st Legion and loving it and I'm thrilled at the prospect of getting my legion force back on the table using the new rules.  Even without the legion specific rules, the new detachments grant a level of flexibility in army construction that should cover almost every base.



#45 sefiii

sefiii

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 75 posts

Posted 08 July 2017 - 09:36 AM

i think that this is a comprehensive work and for the people who want to play 8'th it is a great resource 


108'th Expeditionary fleet "The stalwart" 

Veterans of the Rangdang Xenocides 

Breakers of the Laputan Tecnocracy

Patrons of the cult of the Helix sundered 

 

https://icantpaint40k.blogspot.com

 


#46 Raglan

Raglan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 14,125 posts
  • LocationMonmouthshire

Posted 09 July 2017 - 08:20 AM

Forgeworld had better hire you on the merits of this alone! I look forward to seeing the Legion specific rules.

 

Agreed, you have produced a document which actually surpasses some of FW/GW efforts of late. 



#47 bob sprocket

bob sprocket

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 103 posts
  • LocationBrisbane, Australia

Posted 09 July 2017 - 10:42 AM

Awesome document guys.

Great feedback so far.

Only other things I've noticed are I couldn't find a 'Pintle Weapons' list for vehicles to upgrade, and Consuls dont seem to have any special wargear limitations (eg Vigilator in Termi armour)
XVII Legion - Chapter of the Profaned Menhir 11:3:1
Istonian 102nd Remnants - The Brothers of Rust
IX Legion - 113th Company, The Exousia
"In the grim darkness of the 31st millennium.......there is always more painting to do."

#48 Tzeentch

Tzeentch

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts

Posted 10 July 2017 - 06:27 AM

OVERALL NOTES

(We ignored the custom detachment rules and Rites of War and used baseline 8th army building. We used Matched Play battle-forged armies.)

+ Covered almost every unit we wanted to field for test games.

+ Better organized that the Index armies.

+ Seemed broadly cross-compatible with Index armies and nothing utterly decimated balance (we didn't test everything and it was friendly games though)

- Too much complexity and ported 7th systems that don't mesh with 8th edition design paradigm.

- Power Levels did not seem balanced with points costs. Was fine for small games but in our larger games we didn't trust the values so went to points.

- Too many dials and switches on the units. This may be a positive for some but was an annoyance to us :)

 

 

<ALLEGIANCE> has no influence in the mechanics. It's also using a keyword category from the Indexes (for Chaos Daemons) but isn't the same thing.

 

<LEGION> causes all sorts of strangeness in 8th edition, and not just because its using the same keyword category from the Indexes (Chaos Space Marines).

 

This is fine for casual friendly games but is going to be a source of conflict for anything but best buds.

 

MASTER OF THE LEGION: We were not clear why making the these units unique doesn't sort this out without a custom special rule.

 

AUGURY SCANNER: We don't believe this has been properly considered for its impact on 8th mechanics. There is a reason that servo skulls don't exist as such in 8th.

 

COGNIS SIGNUM: Only one unit has this. Why not make it an aura ability?

 

ARTIFICER ARMOR: Suggest dropping this. Built it into profiles when appropriate.

 

TERMINATOR ARMOR

- Note that with the Index armies Terminator armor is always paired with Teleport Strike.

- You do pay extra for Tartaros and Cataphractii with the Index listings (Cataphractii +4pts/model over Terminator; Tartaros +5pts/model over Terminator).

 

MIXED TOUGHNESS

- This is generally not allowed in 8th. This causes issues with several units that as-written allow you to mix unit types in a single unit (Apothecary Detachment, for example). These should all be changed to require all units to be upgraded at the same time, or break up after deployment (like the Talons).

 

MELTA BOMBS

- There is no reason to have units all take melta bombs in 8th. Mass grenade throwing died in 7th. It's still dead in 8th.

 

p. 17

I assume Master of Signals is +10 points.

 

p. 20

The Veteran Tactics do not seem balanced with each other or equally useful (Weapon Masters vs. Xenobane, for example). This mechanic also introduces additional bookkeeping. This could possibly be broken out into an army-wide Veteran rule (similar to Combat Drugs).

 

There's no option to pick suspensor web? In any case, suggest dropping the second sentence.

 

p. 31

Neither of us like the Fury of the Legion rule. Its very clunky, particularly in 8th (notably, Overwatch) and in a world of IG having easy access to FRFSRF it's very underwhelming. We used it as-written, which meant we never actually used it in a game.

 

p. 33

Hardened Armor is very counterintuitive and doesn't do anything to protect the unit from many anti-infantry weapons (like Heavy Bolters). Suggest borrowing the All Is Dust save mechanic.

 

p. 35

Shroud Bombs: I can't think of any other 8th mechanic that allows you to mess with enemy charge rolls. Perhaps change to photon grenade mechanics?

 

Recon armor RAW allows you to start closer than 9" from enemy units. Suggest changing to standard deep strike mechanics.

 

 

More later :)


  • Noserenda, Petitioner's City and fezza213 like this

#49 fezza213

fezza213

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 361 posts

Posted 10 July 2017 - 08:57 AM

p. 35

Shroud Bombs: I can't think of any other 8th mechanic that allows you to mess with enemy charge rolls. Perhaps change to photon grenade mechanics?

 

More later :)

 

I have to agree with everything that the master manipulator (Tzeentch) has said, one suggestion I wanted to make is perhaps Shroud Bombs could be a sort of anti charge bomb that stops you from gaining the benefit of charging when you charge that unit. i.e When a unit carrying a Shroud Bomb is charged the charging unit does not get to fight first and must be activated along with all other units who did not charge that turn.



#50 ArbitorIan

ArbitorIan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 318 posts

Posted 10 July 2017 - 09:13 AM

OVERALL NOTES

notes notes notes

 

 

Great - thanks for these! A couple of these might be because you're using 8ed army building, but I'll go through them!!

 

- <ALLEGIANCE> isn't intended to have a mechanic effect - it just does the same thing it did in 7th and stops you taking Loyalist and traitor-only units and characters in the same army. Totally missed that it would conflict with the god-based <ALLEGIANCE> Daemons have!! That will actually be a problem, so I guess we'll have to think of another word? Maybe <FLAG> or <FACTION>?

 

- <LEGION> is a direct copy of the 40k <CHAPTER> keyword with the addition that a detachment may only contain one <LEGION>. What problems were you having? Again, totally missed that this is also the keyword for CSM - I'm not sure why this would cause a problem in 30k games as you wouldn't be taking any 40k armies, but I assume this could cause problems when playing 30k vs 40k? Actually, what happened in 40k if both you are playing Word Bearers CSM?

 

- MOTL - not sure what the question is?

 

- AUGURY SCANNER - great - we'll have a look at this!

 

- COGNIS SIGNUM - a few special characters have it as well - could still make it an aura I guess but I think we were future-proofing... :)

 

- ARTIFICER - kinda agree, though we thought people might be annoyed at the loss of such a 30k-standard item. Also, what is appropriate? Praetors already have it. I never give it to MY centurions, but some other people do - who gets it?

 

- TERMINATOR ARMOUR - yeah, dropping teleport strike was intentional to keep in with what they do in 30k and allow Rites to modify this (like restricting Drop Pods). We have already ported over the additional points for Cataphractii and Tartaros in the unit points costs page.

 

- MIXED TOUGHNESS - you're right - Apothecarion Detachment should have a 'Vehicle Squadron' style rule. That's the only mixed toughened unit at the moment though, right?

 

- MELTA BOMBS - isn't the advantage that you can still use them even if you lose your sergeant? Actually, is losing the sergeant pretty much impossible now? :)

 

- MASTER OF SIGNALS - very possibly! Remember that you have to pay for all the equipment as well though.

 

- VETERAN TACTICS - agree that it's unbalanced. Since it's only the Veteran squad, I think an army-wide thing would be redundant. What about a single 'Veteran' rule, or a restricted list? Any suggestions to bring them in line with each other?

 

- FOTL - noted - I'll have a look a FRFSRF and see what we could change...

 

- HARDENED ARMOUR - I think we've already done exactly what you suggest - will check. On thing I noticed while playing some Badab-based 40k at thew weekend was that FW have included some rules for 'Void Hardened Armour' on some of the characters which is basically a 5+ invulnerable. Simpler solution or just too good?

 

- SHROUD BOMBS - noted. good idea with Photon Grenades - will check!

 

- RECON ARMOUR - noted. will check!

 

 

THANKS!



#51 Grifftofer

Grifftofer

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 285 posts
  • LocationEskilstuna, Sweden

Posted 10 July 2017 - 10:54 AM

Ok. Thanks for all the comments everyone. I've just uploaded an updated version (link above should still work, but let us know if not). There's not any massive changes yet, but a lot of little fixes and some updates in light of the FAQ release.

 

Change Log

1.01

  • Updated the <Legion> keyword to allow for allied detachments to be from different Legions.

  • Added missing rule to Chainfist that inflicts -1 to hit rolls made with it.

  • Added missing Rites of Battle ability to the Legion Praetor.

  • Fixed a repetition error in the Narthecium ability (Primus Medicae and Apothecary)

  • The Legion Apothecary’s Narthecium ability now refers to Apothecaries and not Primus Medicae.

  • Added a restriction to the Legion Tactical Squad’s Fury of the Legion ability to allow it to be used only during the Shooting phase.

  • Standardised the Airborne ability across the various non-Caestus flyers.

  • Updated the Rapier Weapons Battery to reflect the FAQ.

  • Dreadnought, Contemptor, Contemptor-Cortus and Leviathan Talons have an added proviso that they can be taken in Talons of max size 1 if they take a Dedicated Transport.

  • Dreadclaw and Kharybdis have had their Orbital Assault ability updated to better show that disembarking units is a choice.

  • Numerous changes to the Orbital Assault Rite of War to make it more accurate to the 7th Ed version.

  • Drop Pods, Kharybdis and Stormbirds can now transport Rapier Carriers.

  • Stormbirds can now transport Dreadnoughts.

  • A question has been added to the Foreword relating to how widespread Character targeting weapons/units should be in the Legion list.

  • Updated Gravitic Haze Augur to reflect the FAQ.

  • Updated Atomantic Pavaise to reflect the FAQ.

  • Added the Tend the Fallen ability to the Apothecarion Detachment to allow them to set up separately to one another.

  • Added the missing Pintle Weapons list.

  • Updated Recon armour to reflect the FAQ.

  • Increased the cost of Quad launcher Phosphex shells.


  • Penddraig and Noserenda like this

#52 Graham (Grazer) Sanders

Graham (Grazer) Sanders

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 68 posts
  • LocationNotts

Posted 10 July 2017 - 11:37 AM

Just wanted to say what a fantastic job you guys have done on this. Having produced my own 'fan-made' codexes in the past, I can appreciate just how much hard work you must have put into this project - so thank you!

I must admit that sticking with 7th Ed. wasn't for me, so your 8th Ed. Legion list is a lifeline for me, and will keep me playing in the HH era.
30k Death Guard 30k Space Wolves 30k / 40k Squats (count as IG or Imperial Militia)
40k Tyranids 40k Eldar

#53 Timanfaya

Timanfaya

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 10 July 2017 - 06:09 PM

First of all. Great work. Love 8th and will try this out.

Some remarks from a first skim through:
- why BS2 on Heavy support squad. That seems very strong.
- I believe artificer armour is to strong on seargents or similar now that you can choose wound allocation ( high AP you choose a regular dude, low AP you choose the artificer guy). My suggestion is that only characters (single model units) can choose it.
- maybe there should be a tax when choosing tactical support squads compared to regular tactical squads....??

Once again. Great work (I hope FW follow suit)

#54 Mitch311

Mitch311

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts

Posted 11 July 2017 - 12:08 AM

Love the works guys. 1 thing that has stuck out for me. I don't think you've updated the Wounds for the mechanicum battle automata appropriately. Most comparable models have 8-14 wounds now? Hell, a lot of  basic characters have 5-6 wounds.

 

Just my 2cents.



#55 Noserenda

Noserenda

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 67 posts

Posted 11 July 2017 - 12:55 AM

Id just give Artificer armour to all Centurions and Praetors tbh, its was a pretty much auto buy in 7th given how cheap it was (Refractor field/Iron Halo too tbh) and Characters in 8th tend to be tougher as a rule :) 

Sergeants are trickier but i think its best to leave it off, wound allocation etc has totally changed so a mixed save is more of a hindrance than a feature. The model can just have funky armour for funky armour's sake :D 



#56 Tzeentch

Tzeentch

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts

Posted 11 July 2017 - 02:13 AM

Do you have a Discord? I'd love to rap on mechanics and gamification but forums are not very efficient :)

 

- MOTL - not sure what the question is?

Apologies. I mean that a special rule may not be needed at all. Just add "Only one of this model may be included in your army." on the fellows you want to restrict.

 

- HARDENED ARMOUR - I think we've already done exactly what you suggest - will check. On thing I noticed while playing some Badab-based 40k at thew weekend was that FW have included some rules for 'Void Hardened Armour' on some of the characters which is basically a 5+ invulnerable. Simpler solution or just too good?

Hmm. Well the plus side of that is you could simplify them to just being equipped with combat shields (as those give 5++). At some point they start looking a lot like a variant Tactical loadout, however. Is that ok?



#57 fezza213

fezza213

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 361 posts

Posted 11 July 2017 - 06:07 AM

Id just give Artificer armour to all Centurions and Praetors tbh, its was a pretty much auto buy in 7th given how cheap it was (Refractor field/Iron Halo too tbh) and Characters in 8th tend to be tougher as a rule :) 

Sergeants are trickier but i think its best to leave it off, wound allocation etc has totally changed so a mixed save is more of a hindrance than a feature. The model can just have funky armour for funky armour's sake :D

 

I am with this one, I would just build it into the profiles of praetors and centurions. I noticed that captains in the SM book have iron halo's now by default.


  • Noserenda likes this

#58 Irish1983

Irish1983

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 11 July 2017 - 08:19 AM

I dont think its been mentioned but none of the dreadnoughts I looked over have their combat arm attachments. IE combi-bolter, that can be switched out for a heavy flamer, meltagun, etc.  Really nerfs two combat arm dreads, and in imperial index 1 the contemptor has its combi-bolter and all the other dreads have storm bolters that can be atleast swapped for heavy flamers.



#59 bob sprocket

bob sprocket

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 103 posts
  • LocationBrisbane, Australia

Posted 11 July 2017 - 09:55 AM

1.01 - dozer blade points missing (under Other Wargear) or I'm just blind.

I get more impressed and excited every time I read this!
XVII Legion - Chapter of the Profaned Menhir 11:3:1
Istonian 102nd Remnants - The Brothers of Rust
IX Legion - 113th Company, The Exousia
"In the grim darkness of the 31st millennium.......there is always more painting to do."

#60 Grifftofer

Grifftofer

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 285 posts
  • LocationEskilstuna, Sweden

Posted 11 July 2017 - 10:03 AM

One small wall of replies incoming.

 

First of all. Great work. Love 8th and will try this out.

Some remarks from a first skim through:
- why BS2 on Heavy support squad. That seems very strong.
- I believe artificer armour is to strong on seargents or similar now that you can choose wound allocation ( high AP you choose a regular dude, low AP you choose the artificer guy). My suggestion is that only characters (single model units) can choose it.
- maybe there should be a tax when choosing tactical support squads compared to regular tactical squads....??

Once again. Great work (I hope FW follow suit)

Good spot. BS2+ is definitely a mistake and has been fixed for version 1.02. As for the Tactical Support Squad, they should have the Support keyword that means they can't be taken as compulsory Troops, which is the same restriction they had last edition. Are you thinking that there should be something more than that?

 

Love the works guys. 1 thing that has stuck out for me. I don't think you've updated the Wounds for the mechanicum battle automata appropriately. Most comparable models have 8-14 wounds now? Hell, a lot of  basic characters have 5-6 wounds.

 

Just my 2cents.

This is true, but when I was writing the Castellax I was using the Tyranid monsters (mostly the carnifex) as a base. As such I realised that the combination of natively ignoring morale, +1(or 2) BS and a 5+ invulnerable would quickly take them into realms of being incomparable with the units I was using as a base. As such I decided that rather than extrapolate their points I would tone them down in other areas (Attacks and Wounds) so that I would feel happier with keeping their base points closer to the original units (bigger extrapolations are inherently less accurate). Also given they can be taken in bigger units than most tyranids I didn't see it as too much of an issue: a 30 wound unit of Castellax is quite frightening enough in my mind, given the combination of Toughness, Save, Invulnerable etc...

 

After getting them done I was mostly modifying from them as a starting point, hence why Vorax have fewer wounds (but still 24 T6 4+ wounds) and the Domitar one more, but higher Strength, Attacks and WS. Hopefully you can understand my reasoning behind writing them like this, even if you disagree with it. I am completely willing to revisit them though, as and when people decide they don't work after a game or two.

 

Do you have a Discord? I'd love to rap on mechanics and gamification but forums are not very efficient :)

 

- MOTL - not sure what the question is?

Apologies. I mean that a special rule may not be needed at all. Just add "Only one of this model may be included in your army." on the fellows you want to restrict.

 

- HARDENED ARMOUR - I think we've already done exactly what you suggest - will check. On thing I noticed while playing some Badab-based 40k at thew weekend was that FW have included some rules for 'Void Hardened Armour' on some of the characters which is basically a 5+ invulnerable. Simpler solution or just too good?

Hmm. Well the plus side of that is you could simplify them to just being equipped with combat shields (as those give 5++). At some point they start looking a lot like a variant Tactical loadout, however. Is that ok?

The thing with Master of the Legion is that it doesn't limit you to only 1 per army, you can take 1 per 1000pts. Plus the fact that it gives access to Rites of War and that using the keyword in this way lets us add limitations onto units like the Command Squad really easily means I think its probably worth keeping.

 

I dont think its been mentioned but none of the dreadnoughts I looked over have their combat arm attachments. IE combi-bolter, that can be switched out for a heavy flamer, meltagun, etc.  Really nerfs two combat arm dreads, and in imperial index 1 the contemptor has its combi-bolter and all the other dreads have storm bolters that can be atleast swapped for heavy flamers.

All of the dreadnoughts should have an inset bullet point in their options stating that they must take a Dreadnought Secondary Weapon for each dreadnought close combat weapon or dreadnought chainfist. The Dreadnought Secondary Weapon list is with the other wargear lists towards the front of the document (p12).

 

Unfortunately this was something of a compromise as we've tried to include most/all the specifically named weapons on a datasheet in the weapons profiles section of that sheet, so if it says you can replace your flamer with a plasma gun you should have both those profiles. But if it refers you to a wargear list then those aren't included in order to try and save some space. When I was writing up the Contemptor and Cortus-Contemptor I discovered that they both ended up dropping off the bottom of the page due to the number of weapons they can take so I had to make some space. The fist mounted weapons seemed like a good choice as they at least had some cross-applicability with other datasheets. It may not be what I wanted to do originally, but hopefully the compromise is worth it.

 

1.01 - dozer blade points missing (under Other Wargear) or I'm just blind.

I get more impressed and excited every time I read this!

You're not. I just have it listed on the Weapons table rather than other wargear, as I ended up giving it a weapon profile rather than trying to shoehorn a terrain-based effect into a game with fewer terrain rules. Also I liked the idea of using the dozer blade to help run over the enemy. Maybe I should move it to other wargear though?

 

It looks like people are less attached to keeping Artificer Armour than I expected. Having it as such a staple of army lists for so long I thought people would be reluctant to let go of the option, but I guess I was wrong. I will mention one thing though. True the wound allocation does make artificer armour stronger, but given the number of weapons with some level of AP there is a greater element of risk involved in using it on anything other than bolters. Even so if everyone seems to be in consensus on this then we'll probably just rip it out :)

 

As always thanks for all the comments everyone. Keep them coming.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users