Jump to content
ArbitorIan

The 8ed Heresy Project - Legiones Astartes

Recommended Posts

A few months ago, in response to the 'Playing Heresy in 8ed' thread on this forum, a few people started sharing ideas for how we could 'fill in the gaps' and play Heresy with the 8th Edition 40k ruleset.

 

Grifftofer and I ran with this, and have been working hard over the last few weeks to get out a first draft set of rules - most of the hard work being Grifftofer's, who has managed to copy a ridiculous amout of text and layout in such a short space of time!

 

Updates - please find both documents below - the Legions Astartes Army List and the Legions book.

 

Link - Legiones Astartes: Army List

900904_sm-.jpg

 

Link - Legiones Astartes: Legions

900905_sm-.jpg

 

As a general design philosophy, we’ve tried to keep the structure and arrangement of units and armies the same as they have been in previous versions of 30k, but using the new rules system. If rules for a unit exist in 8ed, we’ve used them unchanged. When porting over rules from 7ed, we’ve tried to use equivalent 8ed rules wherever possible, and only write completely new material where necessary.

 

For example, Tactical Squads already have rules in 40k, so we've copied those rules, but given them the 30k weapon options. However, the nuncio-vox rules don't work any more, so we've used the closest existing 40k 8ed rules that made sense (in this case, from the AM Master of Ordnance).

 

We hope that this will be a living community document, and discussion here and on other forums will lead to regular updates as everyone has a chance to playtest it - we haven't had much chance yet! In particular, we've included a foreword with a number of 'big' questions for answering by the community.

 

We're also hard at work with the next document - Legion rules - which requires a bit more thought.

 

Enjoy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an extremely impressive document. Great stuff lads. Only had a quick look through but you certainly seemed to have capture the essence of 8th ed. and HH.

 

Where do you want comments?

 

When Raglan arrives, we may need several tissues...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is beautiful stuff my friend!!!

 

It makes me proud to be a member of this forum, as some very talented people hang out here. This is fucking amazing actually, I am truly shocked by how much work you have put into the document and so grateful, thank you!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where do you want comments?

That's an extremely impressive document. Great stuff lads. Only had a quick look through but you certainly seemed to have capture the essence of 8th ed. and HH.

 

Where do you want comments?

 

When Raglan arrives, we may need several tissues...

If you guys can leave comments in here that would be great, ArbitorIan and I will be monitoring and responding as we can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very nice, I just skimmed through it, but I plan to give it a very through look over and provide comments later. Thank you very much for the effort you put into this project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great job. I like using something like "All is Dust" to represent Boarding Shields. Way more fluffy than an Invulnerable Save.

 

Two quick questions, both mostly pertaining to the Praetor:

 

I might have just missed it, but I didn't see him having the Rites of Battle rule. You mention it in the explanation of keywords, but I didn't see it in his entry.

 

Do you think you would make Paragon Blades deal 1d6 damage on a to wound roll of 6? That would bring back some of their flavor. Maybe it would only work on Infantry?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great job. I like using something like "All is Dust" to represent Boarding Shields. Way more fluffy than an Invulnerable Save.

 

Two quick questions, both mostly pertaining to the Praetor:

 

I might have just missed it, but I didn't see him having the Rites of Battle rule. You mention it in the explanation of keywords, but I didn't see it in his entry.

 

Do you think you would make Paragon Blades deal 1d6 damage on a to wound roll of 6? That would bring back some of their flavor. Maybe it would only work on Infantry?

Rites of Battle: You're quite right. The Praetor datasheet doesn't have it but should :S My fault. I'll make sure it gets added in on the next update I'm thinking of trying to update roughly once a week if there is anything that needs it. So people aren't constantly downloading new versions. Does that sound reasonable?

 

Paragon Blade: For the paragon blade we decided to take the route of using the weapon profile of the Space Marine relic blade so that we could take advantage of GW's testing for points balance. It's perhaps not an ideal solution, but it seemed like a reasonable one for now at least. Maybe we can revisit some of the copy-pasted weapons once we have a bit more working knowledge of 8th Ed's balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is some initial feedback. Couple of caveats: I'm not a massive rules person so I've only really looked at units / RoW that I regularly use as I have more experience with those. I've suggested a couple of changes to bring some rules in-line with either current 8th. ed rules or closer to their usage in 7th if there was no new equivalent.

 

I also want to state again how much I appreciate the work you guys have put into this. It's clearly had a lot of time and effort spent on it so please accept this feedback as constructive comments rather than any indication that your ideas were bad. In a lot of places I have also included my justification for any changes.

 

Feedback on 8th ed. Legiones Astartes rules

 

Nuncio-voxes pp. 3-4

Ability to support artillery units is good but ignores the old deepstrike bonus. Perhaps allow units arriving from Orbital Assault, Drop Pod Assault, Teleportarum etc to set up within 3" of the unit with the Nuncio-Vox but no closer than 6" to the enemy. Units that use this ability may not charge on the same turn.

 

Allies Chart p. 3

Yes, we need this back. It's one of the key features of Heresy and the KEYWORD system limits the risk of the old Deathstars.

 

Rites of War p. 3

Keep RoW as they currently work by limiting / allowing certain units to be taken and giving additional rules. Once we know where Stratagems are going, then we can reflect on these again.

 

Orbital Assault p. 6

* 'Legion Drop Pods and Legion Dreadnought Drop Pods can be taken as Dedicated Transport.' Add Dreadclaws to this list.

* 'All units must be able to begin the game in reinforcements. If the unit cannot do this, or cannot be transported in a Vehicle that can do this, they may not be included in the army'. Remove this line. Replace with : 'All units must either have the Orbital Assault, Drop Pod Assault or Teleport Assault rule, or be in a TRANSPORT unit that has these rules; Units with the FLY Keyword may also be taken'. This change allows units with jump packs or flyers to be included more clearly as currently flyers are precluded.

* 'Units in a detachment that takes this rite always deploys after all other deployment is finished. Half of the units in the army must stay as reinforcements at the start of the game. The other half are deployed to the tabletop, but using their normal reinforcements rules (usually anywhere on the board more than 9” away from the enemy). The half deployed to the tabletop may not charge in the first battle round.' I like these changes with a couple of amendments. The deploying half and half is a great method for getting around deployment restrictions and forces some units to begin on the board. With the 8th ed. missions, most of them allow the army that deployed first to choose to go first or second. The method of deployment described here always allows the opponent to make that choice. The restriction on disallowing first round charges is a double-penalty. Maybe remove that final line?

* Allow Talons of Legion and Contemptor Dreadnoughts to take DDPs as Dedicated Transports

* Allow Deathstorm Drop Pods to be taken as Fast Attack slots as per 7th ed. rules

 

Preator

Check Cataphractii invulnerable save - currently 3+, should it be 4+?

 

Legion Dreadnought, Contemptor (including Cortus) and Leviathan Talons p.23, p.25, p. 27 and p.54

If given a dedicated transport, then only allow Talons of 1 dreadnought as per 7th ed. rules.

 

Rapier Weapons Battery p.28

Graviton Cannon: should this gain bonus / fixed damage versus units with the VEHICLE Keyword like the Grav-Bombard and Graviton Gun?

 

Destroyer Squad p.29

Rad-Missiles: should these wound units with the INFANTRY or MONSTER Keyword on a fixed value to represent the radiation damage? Possibly a 3+? This would reflect the 7th ed. poisoned rule.

 

Tactical Squad p.31

Fury of the Legion - add the limit that this cannot be used in Overwatch like 7th ed.

 

Breacher Squad, p.33

Boarding shield - excellent rule for the extra save versus damage values of 1

 

Seeker Squad, p.36

Marked for Death - change this to 'select one Unit or Character...' (targeting characters in 8th ed. is extremely hard and currently the Seekers have no way to target them other than being the closer target. This change would bring them in-line to their 7th ed. rules for 'Marked for Death')

 

Land Speeder squadron, p.40

Graviton Gun - add a bonus to / fixed damage against units with the VEHICLE Keyword.

 

Anvilus Dreadclaw, p.43 and Kharybdis, p.59

Orbital Assault rule - 'Any models embarked inside can then disembark, but they must be set up more than 9” away from any enemy models.' Change to 'any models embarked can choose to disembark immediately but cannot move or advance this turn - charges are unaffected ...' current rules suggest units have to disembark immediately like a drop pod.

 

Deathstorm Drop Pod, p.44

* Drop Pod Assault - change from 6" to 9"

* Assault Launchers - the ability is good and reflects the 7th ed. rules. Keep the range for both launchers at 12" (18" attacking all units in range is too powerful), change S value for Frag Launchers back to S4 to keep in line with frag missiles

 

Kharybdis, p.59

TRANSPORT - add 'can carry 3 rapier carriages (each rapier carriage counts as 3 models) and crew'

 

Legion Drop Pod, p.62

TRANSPORT - add 'can carry 1 rapier carriage (counts as 3 models) and crew'

 

Storm Eagle, p.64, Fire Raptor, p.66, Stormbird, p.77

Airborne rule - add 'in the fight phase' to keep in-line with other 8th ed. Airborne rules

 

Stormbird, p.77

* TRANSPORT - add, 'may transport a Legion or Contemptor Dreadnought counting as 10 models and rapier carriage (counts as 3 models) and crew'

* Add option to take an Orbital Strike as per Damocles Command Rhino that can be used once per round (adjust points accordingly). This would bring it in-line with 7th ed. rules.

 

Volkite Weapons, p.88

in my mind, these should not be inflicting extra damage on a single target (as per current rules of D:2) but should inflict more wounding hits making them more effective against hordes.

 

Two options are:

Port over the current 7th ed. rules of each wounding hit inflicts one extra wounding hit (with the same profile) that doesn't generate any extra wounds, or use the rules for the Knight Volkite weapons that inflict an extra wound (with the same profile) on any wounding roll of a 6+ (these do not generate more hits)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, i dibt think an ally chart is needed.

Traitor and Loyalist is good enough? 8th no ally rules to add granularity.

 

Copy and paste error on the apothecary still referring to primus medicae.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love what you have done, I may try and convince some peeps to give them a try. 

 

One thing I noticed, I think artificer armor is a bit redundant now with the way wound allocation works and the lack of challenges. 

 

I have had a look through the new index's and I cannot see any mention of it on sergeants or HQ's. HQ's have a choice of power armor or terminator armor (and a different profile for each). With no more challenges and wound allocation as it is I could never see myself adding artificer armor to a sergeant and I would instead spend those points on other things. Sure it may be handy at times but overall kind of meh, HQ's are a different story but given that terminator armor has no real downsides now (catapractii halves your roll for advance moves but thats it) I would just offer terminator armor or power armor. 

 

That may not jel for some people but it seems to be the route that GW have taken with the SM index.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone!

 

I can see a few updates coming quickly as we spot mistakes and typos and as people come up with obvious omissions, and then slowing down as it becomes bigger questions about play testing! Next thing to start on is the Legion book, which we've been plugging through. 

 

 


Ian - might be easier to discuss at HATE in person or on a skype or something?

Ben! Yup, could totally go through this at HATE. Though, if you have time, the advantage of bullet-pointing things here (other than just straight typos) is that al least it becomes a discussion point.

 

Do you think you would make Paragon Blades deal 1d6 damage on a to wound roll of 6? That would bring back some of their flavor. Maybe it would only work on Infantry?

 

Yeah, as Grifftofer said, this was one of our early 'is there an equivalent in 40k' decisions. Maybe, as he said, we should get all the actual mistakes out of the way first and then revisit things like this once everyone has had a change to playtest it. It's the choice we've ended up having to make loads while writing this - the difference between saying 'Praetors need an option for a really cool sword - what really cool sword can people take in 8ed?' and saying 'we need to replicate this specific effect in 8ed'.

 

Here is some initial feedback.

 

<LOADS OF NOTES>

Woohoo! Loads of notes! Thanks! Immediate responses here, but pending seeing what everyone else thinks!

Nuncio voxes - it was easier to just grab the MoO rule, but I understand it's not got anything to represent the DS bonus. As you say, if you reduce the DS range in any way you then have to write more to make sure people don't charge - is this overcomplicated. Not sure...?

Orbital Assault - good ideas here. Dreadclaws aren't included in the initial point as they're already Dedicated Transports, whereas the other Drop Pods have rules stopping you from taking them without this Rite.

Praetor save - I think this might be because in 8ed, characters with an Iron Halo and Terminator Armour get a bonus invulnerable save - not sure though - might be a typo!!

 

Contemptor Talons - good point!

Fury of the Legion - good point!! 

Seeker squad - I see your point but I think this needs play testing - not sure how rare the ability to target Characters should be? We should add this to the Foreword question list!

 

Rad missiles - does this make them very similar to the Phosphex rules which, to be fair, we had to invent?? If anyone has better suggestions for what the Phosphex and Rad rules should be we're all ears!! The other option I had was using the rules from Mechanicum Phosphor weapons for Phosphex which, while different from 7ed, would at least set them apart. 

Graviton weapons - I see your point - it would be lovely to see another FW unit with a Graviton weapon just so we can confirm what the rule is!

Volkite weapons - volkite does exist in 40k so we used the rules unchanged (Damage 2 as far as we can tell). Again, I'm wary of changing things that are published, but if everyone wants to then lets do it...

 

 

To be honest, i dibt think an ally chart is needed.
Traitor and Loyalist is good enough? 8th no ally rules to add granularity.

Copy and paste error on the apothecary still referring to primus medicae.

 

So, at the moment, each detachment is limited to one <Legion> (like 7ed) but your allies could be different Legions. Without writing a ton of new rules, one way I could see the Ally chart functioning is as a Command Point modifier. So, instead of a bunch of rules which don't exist in 8ed, we could just have a chart that means that, say, Space Wolves Primary and Dark Angels Allied means -1CP.

 

I love what you have done, I may try and convince some peeps to give them a try. 

 

One thing I noticed, I think artificer armor is a bit redundant now with the way wound allocation works and the lack of challenges. 

 

Yeah, I wasn't sure if we should bother including it, it's just such a big part of a lot of people's 30k armies! You still pick which model to allocate wounds to, so there is still a use for it as a method of absorbing hits - the save modifiers mean it just isn't nearly as good as it used to be (which is probably for the best). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome job, team. We played a game last night, and it was a blast. We basically mirrored eachother's forces so we didn't have to do any math: 10 tacs in a rhino, 5 terminators in a land raider, an assault squad, a contemptor, and a centurian each. Everything really played out pretty easily and all made sense the way we expected it to. The only hiccups for us were just getting used to 8th edition stuff: assault marines trapping a land raider basically forever because I left it unsupported, melta bombs not working in CC and being a thrown thing instead, that kind of thing.

I look forward to giving it another shot, maybe with some more/ weirder models! Also, it's great to just play "Grey Legions" again. I miss the days when it was just astartes on astartes violence with barely any legion rules at all. The totally level playing field is something I really loved.

 

Only two things we noted that may be intentional or may be omissions:

 

Contemptors with two DCCWs don't get an extra attack

Chainfists aren't -1 to hit like powerfists.

 

Keep it up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×