Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kojiro wrote:
12 is a pretty decent POW gun but hardly unheard of. It's identical to the Arcane Strike on woldstalkers, but with 2" less range. Or you could say its like a cleansers ranged attack, less being a spray or setting stuff on fire.

How would you define the humble lasgun? I used the military rifle, which is POW 11. If not POW 12 then what? 11? Surely not 10 for a bolt round?

I'll grant some of the heavier weapons need tuning. I'm open to suggestions.

Honestly, I would say that lasguns should be POW 10. The military rifle is used on an elite military unit (Trenchers). If you look across warmahordes your typical shooting unit has Pow 10 guns (Gun Mages, Houseguard Riflemen, Widowmakers Errants, etc.). There are exceptions, but they tend to be few and far between, or have some other drawback such as short range. Given that the lasgun is nicknamed the 'flashlight' in setting, I don't think you want to make it on the premier end of warmahordes shooting. To be honest if it wasn't for Dawnguard Invictors I'd even suggest dropping the bolter to Pow 11, but if balanced accordingly it should be fine.

RegalPhantom wrote:
If you look across warmahordes your typical shooting unit has Pow 10 guns (Gun Mages, Houseguard Riflemen, Widowmakers Errants, etc.).

I may be biased, but in my army, only the bushwacker have Pow 10 guns, and they compensate for it by CRA. Every other gun is at least Pow 13 (sluggers (those are still bad ), or blitzer), and sometime pow 14 (Gunnbjorn's bazooka, the thumpers and… the burrowers slug guns!).
Having the IG with pow 10 CRA would make sense imho. But bolters should be at least pow 12, when slug guns are pow 14!

RegalPhantom wrote:

Honestly, I would say that lasguns should be POW 10. The military rifle is used on an elite military unit (Trenchers).

It's also found on Rangers, Steelhead Riflemen and Idrians.

If you look across warmahordes your typical shooting unit has Pow 10 guns (Gun Mages, Houseguard Riflemen, Widowmakers Errants, etc.).

I think this needs some examination. Shooting is not quite the same as guns. The standard pistol in WM/H is 8/10. Magelocks are 10/10. Heavy pistols (like on Mr Walls are 8/12). And of course Hand Cannons at 12/12 but they seem exclusively for FA1/C types.

There are a couple different types of rifle. The military at 10/11, the long and hunting at 14/10 (with the repeater having ROF 2 ala Long Gunners).

Carbines come in at 10/10. Blunderbusses at 8/12.

Crossbows/bows tend to come in at POW 10 with varying ranges but oddly (Nyss Rangers, Reeves, Nyss Hunters) seem to be RNG 12 more often than not.

So we have some guidelines. Personally I'm fine with S3 weapons falling into the 10-11 POW range. For now I'll work on Lasguns being POW 10. Sound good

I think this is an awesome project. Hell, I might actually buy more Warhammer models at some point if you get these rules really polished!! Nicely done, man.

Why thank you sir!

Is there anything in particular you'd like to see?

Daemons. Hehehe

Kojiro, please note, I have not forgotten about this project! Trying to connect with some local 40k players to try it out, but the meta was crashed after 7th.

I'll keep you posted!

All good, I've been stupid busy of late. There's no rush believe me. I'm just happy for the help.

And TTW85- How does a Tzeentch/Slaanesh set sound?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just wondering what people thought of this:


Any and all numbers are up for discussion. Not it is a colossal, minus a cortex, not a battle engine. This way most of the rules are the same but one can actually damage weapons. In addition it opens up Warcaster spell lists.

IG are coming along nicely.

IG Updates! Hope you like the new card style...




And some Chaos updates too....



Sorry for the delays in updates. As always, any or all criticism or suggestions is appreciated!
(Note none of these marines have Rapid Fire!).

-Edit: fixed images-

Version 1 of the Imperial Guard is available.

Chaos coming next.

 Kojiro wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
What I mean is, so far you've largely taken existing rules/templates and just slapped them on to 40k names. Like the sisters all really feel like slightly-tweaked reskins of various exemplar units. It doesn't "Feel" quite right to me.

That's entirely fair, and it's part of the reason I've put this out here- to get alternate ideas and suggestions.

Like it should go beyond a re-hash of Bond of Brotherhood, or giving space marines the fearless advantage, or slotting in WM/H spells. Giving space marines 5 boxes each is something that's a bit of a step in the right direction I think. These are new factions, from a different setting they should have new unique mechanics.

Well I don't think there's anything wrong with giving things appropriate WM/H abilities. Fearless is a good trait for a faction with the tag line 'And they shall know no fear'. I don't quite see why 5 health boxes is a 'new unique mechanic' and Bond of Brotherhood isn't- neither are present in their 40k respective versions.

I do see SoB sharing a lot of the same dimensions as the Protectorate. They're both strongly religious groups and faith is a core part of their identity and powers. Acts of Faith I'm sure translate very well to WM/H though I haven't really looked too deep into it. Indeed the two posted units are purely off the cuff fun. But I think Self Sacrifice works nicely for Sisters, bringing up their units through faith and making them more than second class marines. I also think the Bond works well for a unit that is ostensibly there to die in as bloody a way as possible. That said I'm fully open to alternate suggestions for any or all units should people put them forward.

But the health of marines is but one small aspect. We haven't ruled out making them 5 wounds each (though that leaves to my mind, very little room for terminators and base concerns). For now though I'd like to get other factions- IG (sorry AM ), Tyranids and Necrons at a functional level before I completely redesign Space Marines. Putting these together is actually a fair amount of work and while I'm not outright opposed to major overhauls the case needs to be persuasive enough for me to spend the hours on it in lieu of other first versions.

Which I suppose is my way of saying 'Ok, if we change them to 5 health, what do we also need to change?'

5-box unit grunts are "New and Unique" because no other faction has anything quite like them, or least they didn't at the time of my post. If you don't count warbeast units they still don't. Multiple boxes are things reserved for either bigger/tougher things like cavarly/med based infantry or more important singular models - solos. Boxes on the baseline grunts of the baseline unit in a faction is really unique to the marines as you'd presented them in that post.

I guess what I'm saying here is that at the end of it all it'd be nice to see a unit set come out of this that isn't simply an assemblage of models that already exist in various WM/H factions, with some name changes and DEF/ARM flips.

 Chongara wrote:
5-box unit grunts are "New and Unique" because no other faction has anything quite like them, or least they didn't at the time of my post. If you don't count warbeast units they still don't.

I think you've forgotten Trollkin sluggers but that's incidental. Unless you're talking about small based 5 wound stuff? I'm not 100% up on the Exigence stuff.

Multiple boxes are things reserved for either bigger/tougher things like cavarly/med based infantry or more important singular models - solos. Boxes on the baseline grunts of the baseline unit in a faction is really unique to the marines as you'd presented them in that post.

For what it's worth I did adopt the idea for plague marines. I thought they were truly worthy of that level of durability.

I guess what I'm saying here is that at the end of it all it'd be nice to see a unit set come out of this that isn't simply an assemblage of models that already exist in various WM/H factions, with some name changes and DEF/ARM flips.

And I am all for that- believe me I am. To some extent we're dealing with tropes here. There are undeniable similarities between Menoth and the Sisters and that's going to show through- it would be crazy to create the Sisters and not incorporate some of that stuff.

But ok, let's look at Sluggers. They come in at 5/8 for 3/5. Marines have an all round superior stat line, a similar weapon and superior melee. That to me would price them in at a minimum of 6/9 for 3/5. That means putting 10 vanilla bolter tac marines on the table will set you back 18pts. That's assuming the differences in stats are only worth 1pt. Terminators would be clocking in at 3pts each I would imagine. Doesn't that seem a bit pricey? What about solos? Bump them all to 8 health?

The other element here is, and it's why I posted this, is that I too want to see more than just WM re-skinning. Suggestions for how exactly to achieve this are slim pickings though. I mean, berserkers really do lend themselves to mirroring Doom Reavers. Wraithguard really do feel a lot like Ancestral Guardians/Immortals. Hell they're both animated by souls of the dead implanted into non living sculptures, it's impossible not to see parallels. I've invented a few things- the Auspexer Sentinel and the Aegis Warwalker for example but I'd love more suggestions along these lines if people have them.

Really like this project. If only I had a printer so I could play test them a little! :(

Keep up the good work mate!

 Emperors_Champion wrote:
Really like this project. If only I had a printer so I could play test them a little! :(

Keep up the good work mate!

I shall indeed and thank you!

As I said, next up is Chaos. You've seen some hints at them but those are largely rough drafts. I'd be interested in any suggestions for units/abilities.

So far I have:
Traitor PDF- more or less identical to Guardsmen but with CMA instead of CRA. Where normal IG get officers/special weapons suited to their role (like marines) these guys will get attachments that swing them towards one specific power OR more general stuff, so they can either be Undivided or god specific.

Heretic mob- dirt cheap, poorly trained and equipped cannon fodder. Nuisance to your enemy, souls and corpses for you!

Cultist Summoners - Sort of a reskinning of the Spawning vessel that naturally pumps out lesser demons instead of lesser warbeasts. Naturally they'll need bodies parts/blood for the blood god to accomplish this!

Cultist Ritualists - Similar in part to Paingivers, they are one form of beast handling. They'll also be comfort food so any wounded demon can heal up by devouring their soul.

Undivided Chaos Space Marines - more or less tactical marines with prayers/boons from the dark gods.

Raptors - Similar to Assault marines but with more empasis on hit and run.

Havocs - Anti infantry specialist and anti armour varieties should be available.

Corrupted Magos - A dark mechanic for repairs and a few tricks. Enliven is so much more fitting for a demon infested machine.

Greater Demons will be character warbeasts. Which is not to say they won't also appear as outright warlocks as well.

Most smaller demons will be lesser warbeasts or light warbeasts depending exactly. Now that swarm rules have been introduced some will undoubtedly fall under that (like Nurglings).

Chaos bikers may make an appearance too but will likely be Undivided, at least for now.

1 caster for each god plus a few generic ones like a Demon Prince and a Fallen SoB.

Naturally Khorne stuff will be all about extra attacks and MAT, not so much (though not excluding) extra damage. Nurgle is all about corrosion, piece trading and durability. Nurgle won't be fast or hit you really hard but they are supposed to be very annoying (you will definitely want to kill them at a distance). Tzeentch is naturally going to be a bit pillow fisted but very heavy on the manipulation. Expect to see things like Puppet Strings, Future sight, Calamity, Intuition and Roulette to show up, as well as a fondness for critical effects. Slaanesh is looking to be all about debuffs and (your opponent losing) control and denial.

Chaos will also be the first faction with Arc Nodes.

Anyway, there's some ideas. If anyone has any others or feedback please let me know. For chaos or the other stuff so far done. Thanks!

There are some specific but relatively minor areas of disagreement I've got on numbers and rules; this is mostly quite interesting.

I do have a couple of high-level disputes with your execution of the ideas; first there doesn't seem to be much (or any) synergy across models in most of this, stuff tends to interact with nothing beyond the UAs/WAs and occasionally the warcaster. That is how 40k works, yes, but it's leaving out one of the great strengths of Warmahordes in that a model's strength must be judged on the strength of the army, it can't be judged in a vacuum. Second, your warcasters aren't all that interesting, you've given them a grab-bag of general purpose spells and straightforward/mediocre feats instead of specializing and letting the warcaster define a playstyle. Lastly what conceptually is and isn't a warjack/warcaster doesn't always make a lot of sense to me; I get that there are things that don't translate well between game systems given the difference in the lore, but why is an Archon a warcaster in the Dark Eldar list if all the warjacks are Haemonculus-cult stuff? Why is an Autarch commanding Wraithlords? There doesn't need to be a 1:1 HQ-Warcasters equivalency, some classes of HQ would make more sense as support/beatstick solos than as warcasters.

(Sidenote: I'd suggest starting with a small number of factions and getting them where you want them before deciding you're going to attempt to simulate everything)

 AnomanderRake wrote:
There are some specific but relatively minor areas of disagreement I've got on numbers and rules; this is mostly quite interesting.

Thanks. I would love to hear the specific numbers/rules. Much of the work right now is getting the 'cards' done. For what it's worth, everything you see is done in Excel (with a little image cropping elsewhere) so all the numbers and rules are just a click or two away from being changed. +1 MAT or -1 ARM etc are really trivial and easy adjustments to make. What you're seeing is in no way intended to be a final draft.

I do have a couple of high-level disputes with your execution of the ideas; first there doesn't seem to be much (or any) synergy across models in most of this, stuff tends to interact with nothing beyond the UAs/WAs and occasionally the warcaster. That is how 40k works, yes, but it's leaving out one of the great strengths of Warmahordes in that a model's strength must be judged on the strength of the army, it can't be judged in a vacuum.

I will plead guilty to this. As I said I'm far more about getting things down for now. What I'm really looking for are suggestions on how to make that synergy really shine, ideally from people with an interest in the faction. If you have any ideas- even ones that involve creation of new units to facilitate, please tell me! I really do need a fresh set of eyes on stuff not only to tell me where I've gone (in many, many places) wrong but how it can be done better.

Second, your warcasters aren't all that interesting, you've given them a grab-bag of general purpose spells and straightforward/mediocre feats instead of specializing and letting the warcaster define a playstyle.

This is sort of a limitation in the differences between warcasters (who are ALWAYS magic using wizards) and most available HQs. Some feats, like Blitz, can be represented as execution of a brilliant, coordinated attack or other mundane abilites. Others just require magical power. That said I'm sure I could probably mix it up and blur the line a bit more. Again, I'm entirely open to suggestions on how and what to use. For what it's worth I think Chaos, where I can easily invoke magical powers and such, feels like it's going to be far more in tune with what you're saying.

Lastly what conceptually is and isn't a warjack/warcaster doesn't always make a lot of sense to me; I get that there are things that don't translate well between game systems given the difference in the lore, but why is an Archon a warcaster in the Dark Eldar list if all the warjacks are Haemonculus-cult stuff?

Entirely granted. Dark Eldar have probably undergone the most changes from previous versions (and may continue to do so- personally I think Monstrosities work better for them than warbeasts). The issue faced there was one of relegating the Archon (or any non Homonculi) to solo level, which didn't feel right to our DE player.

Why is an Autarch commanding Wraithlords? There doesn't need to be a 1:1 HQ-Warcasters equivalency, some classes of HQ would make more sense as support/beatstick solos than as warcasters.

Some will appear as both. The DE for example have a homonculus solo and caster. There is a (not in the current release) Librarian solo and several others. But I do get what you're saying. I'm just not sure how to restructure it.

One of the conditions we set upon when starting this was that we weren't going to invent any rules. We wanted to know, unequivocally that however unbalanced our creation was it at least worked. And I can say that- you could take the rules as is, play and have zero rules issues come up. That doesn't mean it feels like 40k though. We did ponder for a while the idea of making the casters/HQs as super solos- warcaster level stats, feats but no spells unless they were psykers. Naturally that seemed to discourage anything but psykers unless we added something to make the others viable, but that would violate the 'no creation' rule. As it is there is s consensus that a Transport rule will be required and drafts have been written. So far it's wordy but functional.

But this is where I'm looking for the feedback. Many of the concerns people have I and others here have had but so far have lacked any superior method of implementation.

(Sidenote: I'd suggest starting with a small number of factions and getting them where you want them before deciding you're going to attempt to simulate everything)

Like I said, I want to get stuff down. Then I just hope to get feedback so the project can evolve. Assuming the Tau get done I'll likely stop after Chaos to refine things properly. This is partly why each faction caps at 30 units- the average number back in Prime - when there are obviously far more things that could be done. So yeah I agree it needs to be reigned in a bit but I want to get enough out there that I catch a decent number of people and I think Chaos will be very interesting.

Out of curiosity, do you think initial design should aim for overpowered then pull it in or balance off the bat?

Just as an idea for Chaos, what if instead of having 5 UAs for each undivided unit, you have the alignment of undivided units dictated by the warcaster/warlock/warwhateveryouwanttocallit leading it? This is sorta like how all of the Cyriss warcasters have field marshall, only it effects all the models in your list, and not just the ones in your battlegroup. For example, if lead by a Khrone warcaster, a unit of undivided raptors, cultists, chaos marines, etc. would become Khronate. You could even have a bunch of different bonuses and penalties on each warcaster that are handed out to all units that share an alignment with it. If you want to get really fluffy, you could even give units of opposing gods animosity to each other, meaning that they couldn't be included in the same list unless it was lead by a warcaster capable of uniting the forces of opposing gods. This idea might help 'tidy' chaos up by requiring fewer specialty attachments for each unit, as well as introduce more synergy between models and make each list more 'dynamically different' by having different warcasters drastically change the functionality of each unit (for example, a Nurgle warcaster would make a unit of cultists a good tarpit, while a Slaaneshi warcaster would make them a good hit and run unit, even without using any spells on them).

That's certainly an idea, thank you! The structure for Chaos was originally going to be very Mercenary Contract like. In that way an inclusion/exclusion list would be possible. I do very much like the idea of Field Marshal/Elite Cadre type army wide boosts though. The question is do we lose some flexibility when it comes to Chaos Undivided? Ideally I'd like a set up where we don't usually see Thousand Sons next to Berserkers (or their demon coutnerparts) except in Undivided. It's tricky waters to navigate.

But I do like the idea of warbands specific to a god. You could use a Opportunits/Purist mechanic where they gain X or Y depending on the faction they're included with possibly? Slaves to Darkness/Lost and Damned? It would add a potential level of synergy and alter the army with a caster change even more.

So the options are:
-Everything starts unaligned and gains faction by UA, restricted by Contract (some models will be auto aligned). This allows for a bit of diversity but requires strict lists of what's in each contract and could be confusing. It requires multiple UAs for each unit
-Everything is unaligned and gains faction by caster. This unifies an army and streamlines the card pool. It does mean all UAs must pass balance testing with all casters to avoid broke combos- units which are already tough may become auto includes in Nurgle for example.
-Everything has a faction built in and Choas are treated as 4 different factions. UAs are unaligned with restrictions on who they'll attach to. Undivided is a type of theme force that grants exceptions.
-Something I haven't considered.

That's another path to take- theme forces. They could easily enforce restrictions and provide benefits for certain choices. I'd prefer that over animosity as there's no way around animosity, it'd hurt Undivided.

I'm not honestly sure how to do it. None of the examples about need be consistent either- you could just as easily have a Nurgle caster with Field Marshal: Plague Marines- Plague marines gain... without having him automatically make the Cultists Nurgle specific, so they could take the Unaligned, Nurgle or no UA. It could even be a trait of specific casters rather than a general rule (Chaos does seem a good faction to be inconsistent) I'll have to give it some deep thought and as always, welcome any suggestions.

On the whole warcaster issue, since that seems to be the most pressing to me: don't try and represent every HQ category as a warcaster. If you're doing Eldar, and it makes the most sense to make Wrathlords your Warjacks and Seers your warcasters (semi-relevant side thought: Wraithseer = Karchev?), fantastic. Stick with that. Don't try to shoehorn an Autarch into the warcaster slot if it doesn't make sense, make him a solo that works sort of like a Tyrant Commander or Gravus. He's a terrifying beatstick with infantry support abilities, but he doesn't have to be a warcaster to be dangerous or relevant in a command role.

I know it sounds silly to put the Archon or the Autarch or the Space Marine Captain in as a solo instead of a warcaster, but keep in mind that Warmachine is a tightly-focused game that's zoomed in on one specific aspect of warfare. It's not supposed to be a comprehensive picture of all war in the setting the same way 40k is. A solo isn't a minor sidekick, a solo is just a person who isn't a warcaster and runs around on his own instead of in a unit. He can be as or more terrifying than the warcaster up close and provide more support to infantry at the same time. The protagonists here are the warcasters and the warjacks, not the army; it's the same with a 40k conversion. The protagonists are the Haemonculi and the Spiritseers and the Techmarines; the Archons and Autarchs and Captains, no matter how important in the abstract, are side characters.

Also yet another random side thought down at the end, it does seem to me that Dark Eldar really ought to interact with soul tokens or corpse tokens somehow.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The specific-numbers-and-rules bit up there might be larger on a more comprehensive reading but right now it's mostly confusion as to where Weapon Master isn't that I'd think it would be.

As to your question initial drafts should aim to be as balanced as they can be with the information you have. If you aim intentionally to overpower or underpower your stuff it's just more editing to go back and do later.