Switch Theme:

40IK Conversion- Looking for balance/critiques  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in au
Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control





Adelaide, South Australia

Hey all,

For a while now myself and a few others have been working on creating a viable 40k to PP conversion. It's recently been given a bit of new life and a make over and I thought it about time to seek some external feedback. Any assistance would be appreciated!

This link contains the first three armies- Space Marines, Eldar and Orks first wave of units. It is by no means an exhaustive list, just what's been done so far. There's also a completed Dark Eldar and most of Tzeentch, Slaanesh and Imperial Guard done but not in the pretty card form.

What I'm looking for is a bit of criticism and balance suggestions, if anyone has the time. Any and all suggestions, opinions and criticisms would be appreciated by anyone who has the time or inclination to do so. There are no new rules whatsoever- everything is taken from existing rules so if you know the PP system, these cards should make 100% sense to you. I'm also interested in any better, more elegant or balanced ways of doing things as well. If you could spend even 5 minutes and give me a single bit of feedback I'd appreciate it a lot.

I'd also be interested in any suggestions people have for other units if people have any 40k knowledge but for balance you only need to know WM/H. These aren't strictly meant to be used against WM/H armies but against each other (though it'd be nice).

Thanks in advance!

Ancient Blood Angels
40IK - PP Conversion Project Files
Warmachine/Hordes 2008 Australian National Champion
Arcanacon Steamroller and Hardcore Champion 2009
Gencon Nationals 2nd Place and Hardcore Champion 2009 
   
Made in om
Longtime Dakkanaut





Muscat, Oman

That's a very interesting idea. I think some people might not like it very much - I could be way off base here, but I feel like the Warmahordes community is slightly more fond of sticking to "the book" than the Warhammer/40K community. Again, just my perception. Personally using my 40K models using Warmachine rules sounds cool, so I hope it gains some traction.

I'll take a look at the PDFs when I have time, but I will say they look quite nicely done, you've put a lot of effort into this! Can I ask what the thought process is behind the army design process? Are you trying to trying to base the 40IK armies on Warmahordes armies with the closest play styles (which I would consider the safe route), and basically using a Warmahordes unit's stats and rules for each 40IK unit, or are you starting from scratch and picking stats and rules that you think best represent the 40K unit's fluff? Also, what are your thoughts about the different base sizes? Are you going to allow/create Mercs? I can't think of that many models in Warmachine that translate to Warjacks (I see you're using each weapon option on a Dreadnought is a different jack, that's a good idea of course) - especially light jacks.


Some suggestions that come to mind:
-White Scars would probably like Bushwhack or something similar.
-A Salamandars Warcaster who gives all friendly faction spray weapons +2 to damage rolls.
-An Iron Hands Warcaster who gives all friendly faction warrior models Tough.
-Tanks as Battle Engines.
-Large walkers, like the Dreadknight, as Colossals.


--Lord of the Sentinels Eternal-- 
   
Made in us
Cosmic Joe





I'm a fluffy player so for me, crossing 40k and Warmachine is a no-go.
Now if you want to use PP style rules to play 40k, that's understandable but it would take a lot of playtesting to make it work.



Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions. 
   
Made in us
Paingiver







At a glance:

I see several little errors than can be fixed in a later pass. Things like numbers, names, and strange wording.

Are these meant to play against existing wm/h armies or only against each other? I'm seeing several balance issues if they are meant to drop into even friendly games against existing wm/h factions. Many of the weapons seem like they were translated rather than redesigned, which leads to them getting past the pow vs. arm phase and waiting for an armor save that is not going to happen. all the factions also have a LOT of grievous wounds, which is a rule that hurts hordes quite a bit -it is to the point that Tyranids are at an innate disadvantage if they get translated over.

Marines have a super strong shooting game. I think you'll have to tone them down if Tau are even allowed to exist. These guys will wipe the table with Snipe & Blitz on plasma devastators. Casters with up to 6 boosted pow12s can threaten so much on their own without even accounting for the army.
The tactical squad UA has CRA but his unit does not, thus neither CRA nor combined arms can work.
Reworking the faction identity to be all about UA and WA specialization ould probably give the space marine feel more than their current ranged dominance.

Orks look a whole lot more balanced. I still worry about some of the ranged weapons and all the grievous wounds but their biggest issues seem to be internal balance. Kommandos and stormboyz make slugga boyz pointless for instance.
Gretchin look like they are really fun. Good job on designing out of the box. They look like they need extensive testing to get the points right though.
Tankbusta rokkit launchers are over the top for the unit's cost. They can wreck a heavy.
The nob attachments have no points values.

Eldar are skewed heavily toward ranged rather than melee just like marines are. Their strongest guns are actually higher power than their strongest melee. Pow18 erosion guns are pretty absurd. They don't seem bad except for the weapon stats.
Warwalkers do not have a cortex.
Interesting in that they have so many critical effects but only one caster has all the accuracy buffs to help fish for those crits. It might be better to pull some of those buffs away and add one to a suport solo.

Sorry if I come off overly critical but I feel you have an odd mix of good design and awful design. I suggest you sever ties to the source material and rebuild some of the entrees based on what you feel the factions on whole should be doing. I see no need for over half the units to have cumbersome grenades, great pistols, and bad melee weapons.


   
Made in au
Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control





Adelaide, South Australia

Soul Samurai wrote:
That's a very interesting idea. I think some people might not like it very much - I could be way off base here, but I feel like the Warmahordes community is slightly more fond of sticking to "the book" than the Warhammer/40K community. Again, just my perception. Personally using my 40K models using Warmachine rules sounds cool, so I hope it gains some traction.

I think you're probably right there. Unofficial stuff does seem, unless it can demonstrate the same quality as PPs own rules to be unlikely to be widely acknowledged, let alone adpoted. Ideally I'd like to see it as a an opportunity- a chance for WM/H players to dust off some stuff they once loved and have a bash (I mean if you suddenly found you owned a free Circle army who wouldn't give it a go?) and maybe even another way to get 40k players interested in WM/H.

I'll take a look at the PDFs when I have time, but I will say they look quite nicely done, you've put a lot of effort into this!

Thank you! The versions you're seeing are, I think, version 7 or 8 of the template that kept growing and changing to accept all the various unit types. The current ones are by far the prettiest and easiest to read when printed.

Can I ask what the thought process is behind the army design process? Are you trying to trying to base the 40IK armies on Warmahordes armies with the closest play styles (which I would consider the safe route), and basically using a Warmahordes unit's stats and rules for each 40IK unit, or are you starting from scratch and picking stats and rules that you think best represent the 40K unit's fluff?

Of course! It's a bit of a mix to be honest. In part I'm trying to best as possible represent various 40k units with their iconic abilities (hence why marines all have dual shot on bolt weapons) and I'll be honest and say that doing so innately hurts balance. Some things I've toned down (or left out) because they're simply because they're too powerful or there's no good way to represent them. Some I've done but I'm not happy with at all. There's no real copying of exiting WM factions though, at least not intentionally. Sisters of Battle are going to have *a lot* of abilities you'd normally find in Menoth due to the whole faith similarities but I think this will make the SoB far more interesting than their 40k counterparts.

As I said above, there are no new rules (though I did create new icons for existing rules). No new rules ensures that even if I've got my balance off at least mechanically everything works, which is something a game of 40K has been missing for a while. The only rule I plan to invent at this point is something to represent transports. Something simple like a special action that translates each model to a token on the transporting model, which in turn has a dismount special action (ensuring it can't run and deliver troops, of if it does they can't activate that turn) that removes tokens to place models within 2" or something.

Also, what are your thoughts about the different base sizes?

Yeah that's a problem. For now I'm happy with (also it's not really alterable) that for these purposes a small base is 25-30mm, medium is 40mm and 50mm and up is large. It works ok. Not perfect but ok. If I ever get to colossals they'll have to use the 1200mm base or the wraithknight/dreadknight type base. The real problem is models *without* a base.

Are you going to allow/create Mercs?

Absolutely. The Chaos gods are going to work on a system similar to the Merc contracts system, so you'll see certain combinations but you won't see fluff destroying ones. Chaos Undivided will also be a contract but will be necessarily weakened to make up for its strength of diversity. Grey Knights will have a merc unit that will be available to all Imperial forces like the Cephalax, as well as their own faction in time.

I can't think of that many models in Warmachine that translate to Warjacks (I see you're using each weapon option on a Dreadnought is a different jack, that's a good idea of course) - especially light jacks.

Dreadnoughts work well enough. Not ideally but well enough. Most of them come with some for of Heavy Boiler, Accumulator or Aggressive so they're able to run about largely unsupported. The trick here is what you really count focus as. For psyker models it's easy- forcus is simply their abilities but for non psykers I take the more video game approach. You can think of the Space Marine captains focus as Fury (ala Space Marine) or Zeal from DoWII. Consider it his martial focus if you will, a combination of skill, the Emperor's protection and super human abilites. His spells are all 'tactical' and with a little creative thought work quite fluffily. If you don't think of Explosivo as a spell but instead as the Captain handing out Hi-Ex Blessed bolt rounds it fits perfectly. Other spells work as direct commander intervention/attention, like Tactical Supremacy or Fire for Effect. A lot of spells (and abilities) work really well if you take a moment to rename them to something suitable for 40k fluff. In previous interations I have done so but it got confusing for playtesters who knew what the Warmachine version was but had to ask all over again when told the 40k name.

I'll admit light warjacks aren't common, thought the Dark eldar and chaos have a few light warbeasts in the current rules- Wracks for example. Those rules are old though and I may well update them to use monstrosity rules which fits them pretty closely.

Some suggestions that come to mind:
-White Scars would probably like Bushwhack or something similar.

-A Salamandars Warcaster who gives all friendly faction spray weapons +2 to damage rolls.
-An Iron Hands Warcaster who gives all friendly faction warrior models Tough.

I'm not sure how to handle specific factions of marines yet. I am partial to the idea of generic marine armies (with generic casters) that suit all chapters but then adding in Loadouts (my version of UAs) which represent those abilities. A Hit and Run Loadout might have a sergeant that grants Bushwhack and Pathfinder though I'd eschew calling it White Scars. Certainly if you wanted to play White Scars you could use those UAs and eschew say, the Siege Specialists Loadout or Flame Brothers Loadout, or any other particular set. And it doesn't have to be limited to UAs, they could just as easily be solos who grant similar abilities within CMD. Alternately Chapters could become theme forces with corresponding bonuses- a White Scars theme would up the FA on Bikes but not include devastators for example.
-Tanks as Battle Engines.

These are already done for IG (or I should say AM now I suppose). Balance is a BIG issue here.
-Large walkers, like the Dreadknight, as Colossals.

Certainly on the books but I honestly don't think I've got that level of game design down yet. I absolutely would want to do them but there's already a large mess on the table as far as balance goes. When I've got that (mostly) straight I'll move on to those scale units. Like PP I'd like to give such things to everyone- marines get a Knight/dreadknight, Eldar get the Wraithknight, Riptide for Tau etc and of course greater demons for Chaos.

I'm a fluffy player so for me, crossing 40k and Warmachine is a no-go.

With enough time, ideally it'll be playable either as exclusively 40k with PP rules OR as a crossover, whichever the players would like


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Dais wrote:

Sorry if I come off overly critical but I feel you have an odd mix of good design and awful design. I suggest you sever ties to the source material and rebuild some of the entrees based on what you feel the factions on whole should be doing. I see no need for over half the units to have cumbersome grenades, great pistols, and bad melee weapons

Absolutely no apology necessary. This is exactly the kind of feedback I'm after. You're right I have mostly just translated across and tried to keep things in relative balance with each other (which given 40K balance may not be a good idea). I also appreciate the little things- like missing points costs or CRA icons. Easy fixes but entirely necessary.

You're right ranged certainly does dominate. I suppose it's a remnant of shooting in 40k on troopers tends to vastly exceed the power of melee hits. S5+ guns are easy to include in just about any squad. S5+ melee attacks generally require power fists, walkers or specialist units. I wholly agree it needs to be toned down if you're ever to use it against WM/H.

Thanks for the imput! Please keep it coming. If you have any alternate suggestions- for example the Erosion on the Brightlance is there to differentiate it from a lascannon- I am all ears. I'm certain I haven't hit upon the most elegant way to represent stuff.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/22 22:51:44


Ancient Blood Angels
40IK - PP Conversion Project Files
Warmachine/Hordes 2008 Australian National Champion
Arcanacon Steamroller and Hardcore Champion 2009
Gencon Nationals 2nd Place and Hardcore Champion 2009 
   
Made in au
Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control





Adelaide, South Australia

To address some specifics...
 Dais wrote:

I see several little errors than can be fixed in a later pass. Things like numbers, names, and strange wording.

This is actually really important to fix, so anything you spot please let me know.

Are these meant to play against existing wm/h armies or only against each other?

At first against each other. Balancing against WM/H would be ideal but one step at a time.

I'm seeing several balance issues if they are meant to drop into even friendly games against existing wm/h factions. Many of the weapons seem like they were translated rather than redesigned, which leads to them getting past the pow vs. arm phase and waiting for an armor save that is not going to happen.

That's pretty spot on. I should probably kick all the ranged weapons down a notch or two.
all the factions also have a LOT of grievous wounds, which is a rule that hurts hordes quite a bit -it is to the point that Tyranids are at an innate disadvantage if they get translated over.

Yeah we had the idea that power weapons (and their equivalents) should negate tough. It's been suggested that on melee attacks at least we replace it with Take Down which has the same anti-tough but doesn't interfere with transferring/healing.

Marines have a super strong shooting game. I think you'll have to tone them down if Tau are even allowed to exist.

I will fully cop to being around when marines got given Rapid Fire and +1 toughness back in the day. I am attached to the rapid fire but I could see it becoming a UA ability if you think that's more balanced?
These guys will wipe the table with Snipe & Blitz on plasma devastators.

Heavy weapons units in general are a problem, in part because there's no analogue in WH/H. Some you can make into artillery pieces like the Winterguard mortar (IG do this in particular) but representing a squad of mortars in a problem.

Casters with up to 6 boosted pow12s can threaten so much on their own without even accounting for the army.

I think the closest to this there is is the SM captain who can pump out 5 shots if he doesn't move. He's supposed to be a tactical toolbox though, but I could easily drop the ROF on his master crafted weapon to 2.
The tactical squad UA has CRA but his unit does not, thus neither CRA nor combined arms can work.

I shall add the CRA icon. Oops
Reworking the faction identity to be all about UA and WA specialization ould probably give the space marine feel more than their current ranged dominance.

That's kinda the idea with marines, to make them very flexible. Partially to represent some of the options 40k Players are used to but also just to provide depth to what it otherwise a faction of largely identical guys in power armour.

Orks look a whole lot more balanced. I still worry about some of the ranged weapons and all the grievous wounds but their biggest issues seem to be internal balance. Kommandos and stormboyz make slugga boyz pointless for instance.

Quite true. It has been recommended and I tend to agree that Ork Boyz (sluggas and shootas) should be dropped to 3/5. That would encourage the green tide and give them appeal next to other units.
Gretchin look like they are really fun. Good job on designing out of the box. They look like they need extensive testing to get the points right though.
Thank you! I appreciate positive feeback too to by all means keep it coming as well. The orks are one faction that hasn't been playtested at all but were done *after* initial testing so they may well be a bit more balanced just due to the learning curve. Gretchin are of course supposed to be the annoying shield for advancing units that will soak up fire. Unless the Runtherd gets killed in which case they'll run, as it should be.
Tankbusta rokkit launchers are over the top for the unit's cost. They can wreck a heavy.

They are inaccurate. Granted this is largely taken from Space Marine where the things seem wildly inaccurate but yeah, when they hit they hit hard. Not to dismiss the criticism but tankbustas *should* be able to wreck a heavy since it's their primary purpose.
The nob attachments have no points values.


Eldar are skewed heavily toward ranged rather than melee just like marines are. Their strongest guns are actually higher power than their strongest melee.
That's an artefact of eldar just not being that strong physically but having excellent guns. The remedy of course is to artificually reduce their firepower or inflate their melee weapons, it's just a matter of working out which is less fluff divergent.

Pow18 erosion guns are pretty absurd. They don't seem bad except for the weapon stats.

I wanted a weapon that could reliably do heavy damage to a warjack like target. Being a Brightlance I wanted armour in particular- such as constructs like dreadnoughts. Erosion is there to give t that anti armour edge lascannons lack, simulating the lance rules.
Warwalkers do not have a cortex.

No, not currently. They may at some point get a Pilot but Cortex didn't seem to fit.
Interesting in that they have so many critical effects but only one caster has all the accuracy buffs to help fish for those crits. It might be better to pull some of those buffs away and add one to a suport solo.

There is, though not published, an eldar Warlock that provides some assistance, Kovnik Joe style and another explicitly to lead (a UA) for wraithguard (who may take on a more Ancestral Guardian vibe).

Sorry if I come off overly critical but I feel you have an odd mix of good design and awful design. I suggest you sever ties to the source material and rebuild some of the entrees based on what you feel the factions on whole should be doing. I see no need for over half the units to have cumbersome grenades, great pistols, and bad melee weapons.
The only reason grenades have cumbersome is to prevent units from firing their weapons AND throwing grenades. Grenades could be removed entirely but that seems wrong.

Thanks again for the feedback!

Ancient Blood Angels
40IK - PP Conversion Project Files
Warmachine/Hordes 2008 Australian National Champion
Arcanacon Steamroller and Hardcore Champion 2009
Gencon Nationals 2nd Place and Hardcore Champion 2009 
   
Made in om
Longtime Dakkanaut





Muscat, Oman

Kojiro wrote:As I said above, there are no new rules (though I did create new icons for existing rules). No new rules ensures that even if I've got my balance off at least mechanically everything works, which is something a game of 40K has been missing for a while. The only rule I plan to invent at this point is something to represent transports. Something simple like a special action that translates each model to a token on the transporting model, which in turn has a dismount special action (ensuring it can't run and deliver troops, of if it does they can't activate that turn) that removes tokens to place models within 2" or something.
That's a very interesting idea. In Warmahordes, mobility seems to me to be much more of a big deal that in Warmachine though, so you would have to be very careful about how much movement potential it adds to a unit. I think definitely don't want an entire unit to be able to gain 6" or more of threat range on top of being protected from harm and being easier to manoeuvre through obstacles etc. Remember that in 40K both units get to swing in each assault phase, in Warmahordes only the attacking one does, so getting the charge is arguably an even bigger deal, and of course jamming and holding zones and so on are how you win the game.


Kojiro wrote:The trick here is what you really count focus as. For psyker models it's easy- forcus is simply their abilities but for non psykers I take the more video game approach. You can think of the Space Marine captains focus as Fury (ala Space Marine) or Zeal from DoWII. Consider it his martial focus if you will, a combination of skill, the Emperor's protection and super human abilites. His spells are all 'tactical' and with a little creative thought work quite fluffily. If you don't think of Explosivo as a spell but instead as the Captain handing out Hi-Ex Blessed bolt rounds it fits perfectly. Other spells work as direct commander intervention/attention, like Tactical Supremacy or Fire for Effect. A lot of spells (and abilities) work really well if you take a moment to rename them to something suitable for 40k fluff. In previous interations I have done so but it got confusing for playtesters who knew what the Warmachine version was but had to ask all over again when told the 40k name.
There's really just no way around that without a ton of custom rules since focus is THE core of Warmachine. Considering that it's in many ways similar to IG Orders though, I don't think it's too big a stretch for most players to deal with. A commander can only "focus" on just so many things at a time; either he is directing units to better their performance or authorising specific restricted weapons/tactics, or he is using his own considerable battle prowess and unique weapons and wargear. You could probably call it "Tactical Focus" and call spells "Tactical Actions" to be fluffy. A feat could be a "Restricted Protocol" or a "Heroic Action" or something. Yes, each army would need a bit of an explanation page to tie fluff to rules, but then Warmachine has that already - Convergence have their Vector special rules, Cephalyx have brains instead of cortices, etc.


Kojiro wrote:You're right ranged certainly does dominate. I suppose it's a remnant of shooting in 40k on troopers tends to vastly exceed the power of melee hits. S5+ guns are easy to include in just about any squad. S5+ melee attacks generally require power fists, walkers or specialist units. I wholly agree it needs to be toned down if you're ever to use it against WM/H.
I think that in 40K the strength of close combat is the volume of attacks and the denial of cover saves. In W/H I think the balance comes in large part from melee attacks tending to be more powerful and/or accurate. I think that normally MAT should almost always be higher that RAT (remember you can always aim), ranged weapons should not have too high a POW, and giving models more than one ranged attack each should not be done lightly.

Consider for example: Bolters might be powerful and have high rates of fire, but boltgun rounds are large and heavy so Marines can't carry that many and won't want to waste them. Therefore they will limit their rates of fire unless a commanding officer specifically tells them to cut loose (ie. Warcaster spell or UA minifeat) - at least that's one idea for consolidating the fluff and rules.


So have you played these rules much with a local group or anything? I would be interested to hear about how it went, and a 40IK battle report would be very cool!

--Lord of the Sentinels Eternal-- 
   
Made in au
Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control





Adelaide, South Australia

Soul Samurai wrote:
That's a very interesting idea. In Warmahordes, mobility seems to me to be much more of a big deal that in Warmachine though, so you would have to be very careful about how much movement potential it adds to a unit. I think definitely don't want an entire unit to be able to gain 6" or more of threat range on top of being protected from harm and being easier to manoeuvre through obstacles etc. Remember that in 40K both units get to swing in each assault phase, in Warmahordes only the attacking one does, so getting the charge is arguably an even bigger deal, and of course jamming and holding zones and so on are how you win the game.

You're quite right, transporting units could be extremely powerful which is why I think it would have to be extremely capped. Most movement effects in WM/H don't allow follow up moves after you get a 'free' move so by default transports would have to have similar. That would mean their purpose would be either to protect from incoming fire or to be faster than the troops they carry and strictly NOT delivery devices.That way- in WM/H at least- lies madness I think.

There's really just no way around that without a ton of custom rules since focus is THE core of Warmachine. Considering that it's in many ways similar to IG Orders though, I don't think it's too big a stretch for most players to deal with. A commander can only "focus" on just so many things at a time; either he is directing units to better their performance or authorising specific restricted weapons/tactics, or he is using his own considerable battle prowess and unique weapons and wargear. You could probably call it "Tactical Focus" and call spells "Tactical Actions" to be fluffy. A feat could be a "Restricted Protocol" or a "Heroic Action" or something. Yes, each army would need a bit of an explanation page to tie fluff to rules, but then Warmachine has that already - Convergence have their Vector special rules, Cephalyx have brains instead of cortices, etc.

I wholly agree. If you apply just a little imagination to the terminology it works just fine. Ork stuff in particular can be renamed any number of things (for example replace Fury with WAAAAAH!). On the whole it's not a barrier.

I think that in 40K the strength of close combat is the volume of attacks and the denial of cover saves. In W/H I think the balance comes in large part from melee attacks tending to be more powerful and/or accurate. I think that normally MAT should almost always be higher that RAT (remember you can always aim), ranged weapons should not have too high a POW, and giving models more than one ranged attack each should not be done lightly.

I tend to agree and to be honest I've been more caught in the translation than balance, hence my request for assistance! That said it also depends what kind of terrain people want to play on. If you played with the kind of heavy terrain I see in 40k, with cover being all over the show, ranged is going to VERY quickly get inaccurate. But then I tend to think it'll move towards more WM/H style given the rules so... You're right though aiming is always an option and multiple ranged attacks does heavily bias gunlines. I fully agree this needs addressing.

So have you played these rules much with a local group or anything? I would be interested to hear about how it went, and a 40IK battle report would be very cool!
A little yes. Nothing was recorded though, at least not in a battle rep kind of way. I'm sure one could be done but I'd be embarrassed it'd be horribly imbalanced and one sided. In time, sure.

I've already made some changes with more to come. Dark Eldar are also next on the list. I think you'll find they're very much more in line with WM/H levels of balance.

Ancient Blood Angels
40IK - PP Conversion Project Files
Warmachine/Hordes 2008 Australian National Champion
Arcanacon Steamroller and Hardcore Champion 2009
Gencon Nationals 2nd Place and Hardcore Champion 2009 
   
Made in au
Trustworthy Shas'vre






I've thought about something like this a lot, but there are some things in 40k which are simply completely different to WMH that I'm not sure how it would work.

40k involves much larger ranges than WMH - there are weapons with literally unlimited range, and many weapons with practically unlimited range. There is a lot balanced around volume of fire (Heavy 20 guns, Rapid Fire), and a lot of upgrades which don't really have an analogue in WMH. Plus a lot of armies you have to stretch the focus/fury analogy quite far.

I think a big part of it would have to be scaling down our current thinking of 40k, especially away from squads of the warjack-esque units like Centurions, Crisis Suits or Carnifexes. Think of the engagement as maximum of 20 space marines. Heavy Weapons models become solos or UA's instead of fully fledged units possibly. 10 terminators should nearly be a 35pt army on their own.

How does one add the equivalent of a railgun (S 10 AP 1 Range 72), or a D weapon, to WMH? Range 30 ROF 1 POW 16 Armor Piercing, Grievous Wounds?

Actually this might be kind of fun. I might give Tau a go.
   
Made in au
Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control





Adelaide, South Australia

Trasvi wrote:

How does one add the equivalent of a railgun (S 10 AP 1 Range 72), or a D weapon, to WMH? Range 30 ROF 1 POW 16 Armor Piercing, Grievous Wounds?

I wholly agree there are things that need to be left out. One of the complaints 40K has weathered in recent times (and one I agree with) is that the scale of the game- and the models represented in it- has gotten out of hand. That is has strayed into the realms of Epic, where weapons like you're talking about belong.

Ultimately scales must be adjusted and some loyalty to the fluff has to be sacrificed on the altar of balance. And some models are going to simply not translate because the scope of a WM game just doesn't include them. If it won't fit on a 120mm base, it's probably out, along with flyers and (for now) transports. We have to keep the scope at the squad level.

But you can make some really nifty abilities with what's in there.

Actually this might be kind of fun. I might give Tau a go.

I would be more than happy to have them done, as they're one faction no one has looked at here. If you'd like a copy of the basic templates, bits and unit abilities list send me a PM and I'll email them to you. For what it's worth I'd go with Gun drones with Mark Target or Fire Beacon, Shield Drones with Kinetic Field or Shield Guard, Pathfinders with, well pathfinder and prowl...I look forward to seeing what you come up with!

Ancient Blood Angels
40IK - PP Conversion Project Files
Warmachine/Hordes 2008 Australian National Champion
Arcanacon Steamroller and Hardcore Champion 2009
Gencon Nationals 2nd Place and Hardcore Champion 2009 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Not as Good as a Minion






Brisbane

Pathfinders could basically be Rangers from Cygnar. But instead of mark target have a ranged weapon with cumbersome which causes flare and no damage to simulate the markerlight, forcing them to choose between their rifle or their markerlight. But it means they don't need to get within 5" like the actual Rangers, so you'd need to make sure you balance it (range 8 or something maybe, not too far)

I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own... 
   
Made in au
Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control





Adelaide, South Australia

 motyak wrote:
Pathfinders could basically be Rangers from Cygnar. But instead of mark target have a ranged weapon with cumbersome which causes flare and no damage to simulate the markerlight, forcing them to choose between their rifle or their markerlight. But it means they don't need to get within 5" like the actual Rangers, so you'd need to make sure you balance it (range 8 or something maybe, not too far)


More or less they could be. I would suggest though thinking about all the various options for them. Among the appropriate ones are certainly flare, mark target, fire beacon, intelligence (they are forward scouts after all). You could go with a pathfinder solo who hands out pathfinder to units and has a photo grenade ability like Black Oil. Of course you can also get in on some Prowl from the UA or camoflague. Menoth's sight even works. The trick is to spread these abilities out over a uint, UA, solo and possibly alternate UAs or WAs appropriately.

Tau certainly can be done but I think they'll *need* kroot in there for some melee power. Exclusive gun lines will have problems. Either way I'm interested to see other people's ideas!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In fact just to show how easy it is...

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/09/26 05:53:21


Ancient Blood Angels
40IK - PP Conversion Project Files
Warmachine/Hordes 2008 Australian National Champion
Arcanacon Steamroller and Hardcore Champion 2009
Gencon Nationals 2nd Place and Hardcore Champion 2009 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Florida

I love this. It would make me want to play 40k. I really dig the Eldar cards.

The spell choices/feats are appropriate to the casters, but I think the stats are a bit high for some.

This would be tons of fun to playtest!

\m/ 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





This is cute. Seems like it could be a fun distraction for a local group. I like the idea of coming up with a new resource mechanic (as opposed to Focus/Fury) that interacts with different models, if only so every leader isn't effectively a Psyker and you don't lose all the "Feel" of 40k specials.

The WM/H engine is flexible enough to introduce a lot of new design space with something like this. I think it'd both make it feel more fresh and interesting from a WM/H perspective, and more evocative from a 40k perspective.
   
Made in au
Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control





Adelaide, South Australia

 melkorthetonedeaf wrote:
I love this. It would make me want to play 40k. I really dig the Eldar cards.

Thanks!
The spell choices/feats are appropriate to the casters, but I think the stats are a bit high for some.

If you have the time, I'd be very interested to hear which ones and how much? I'm very interested in balancing it. If I had to guess I'd say it's the Avatar though- he is a bit awesome.

This would be tons of fun to playtest!

Please do and let me know how it goes.

Dark Eldar are being translated now. Currently they looks like this:


If there's any unit people would like to see, please let me know and I'll create it if it's not done or translate it from the original files.

The WM/H engine is flexible enough to introduce a lot of new design space with something like this. I think it'd both make it feel more fresh and interesting from a WM/H perspective, and more evocative from a 40k perspective.

That's one reason I really like this mod. You can make stuff feel far more evocative of the 40k fluff than the 40k system. For example 40K no longer really supports the pink/blue horrors of old. Using the WM/H system we can recreate them with the Whelp Shedding rule, swapping out 'whelps' for 'blue horrors' and boom- you have splitting horrors again! You have the Cultist High Priest in our Chaos line up with Body snatcher and and Spawn Horror (from the Spawning Vessel). In short he can sacrifice his own people, or enemies to his gods to put lesser demons into play. How is that not awesome?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And for any Sisters fans out there...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/27 06:33:20


Ancient Blood Angels
40IK - PP Conversion Project Files
Warmachine/Hordes 2008 Australian National Champion
Arcanacon Steamroller and Hardcore Champion 2009
Gencon Nationals 2nd Place and Hardcore Champion 2009 
   
Made in au
Trustworthy Shas'vre






So I'm going through making the Tau stuff at the moment.
I've decided that I'm just going to write them as a stand-alone force without comparing to the other forces you've made, because I can't make them balanced compared to the other stuff you already have.

Basically I think you have RNG and POW too high for most weapons, and DEF/ARM too low for marines. They're supposed to be tough to kill, but most models in the game will be taking them out with average dice. Your Tac marine squad easily shoots another Tac squad to death - 12 shots hitting and killing on 4's.

If the range/power of Tac marines was toned down, and/or if their survivability was increased, that would leave a lot more room for other armies to move around. Currently they are cheap enough and powerful enough that trying to balance a real shooting unit like Fire Warriors - with longer range, higher power and reliable access to RAT buffs - becomes a real issue.


The fire warrior profile I'm considering is based off Cygnar Long Gunners:
SPD 5 STR 4 MAT 3 RAT 5 DEF 12 ARM 14 CMD 7
CRA
Pulse Rifle:
RNG 13 ROF 2 AOE - POW 11
Combat Knife
Pow 3 P+S 7

Dual Shot
Set Defense (to represent photon grenades)
Leader+5 - 6pts
Leader+9 - 10pts
Even that is a little cheap in traditional WMH terms, but it still reliably wipes out that marine unit every turn.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Illinois

Yea I would seriously consider making marines into warmachine/hordes equivalent heavy infantry like skinwalkers or bastions.

Take in units of 5/6 with 8 hit boxes a piece. Let stuff like guardsmen be the one hit box infantry.

Edit: Or maybe make marines in PA 5 hit box, and keep the terminators at 8.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/29 19:27:06


 
   
Made in us
Big Fat Gospel of Menoth





The other side of the internet

Definitely marines at 5 and termies at 8. Gives them some room to differentiate.

(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

RAGE

Be sure to use logic! Avoid fallacies whenever possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies 
   
Made in au
Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control





Adelaide, South Australia

You guys think this would be better:

Naturally the cost would need to be adjusted. I am worried though that marines would need to be upgraded to medium bases to be consistent with other heavy infantry. I'd also worry that making every marine multi wound would create *a lot* of book keeping.

Ancient Blood Angels
40IK - PP Conversion Project Files
Warmachine/Hordes 2008 Australian National Champion
Arcanacon Steamroller and Hardcore Champion 2009
Gencon Nationals 2nd Place and Hardcore Champion 2009 
   
Made in au
Trustworthy Shas'vre






re bookkeeping - meh. My favourite hordes army consists nearly entirely of multi-box models (mulg, axer, double warders, champs, assorted support) and it isn't difficult at all to keep track of. I think the bigger issue is that 50%+ of armies in 40k will be 50%+ composed of models with the same profile.
As a troll player I also don't have a problem with all medium based infantry


Also the marines should be leader+4.

Be aware that those marines will still kill a little over 3 opposing marines on average dice. Bringing them down to POW 11 gets them down to 2.5 opposing marines dead which might be a better proposition.
Also consider comparing them to Trollkin Sluggers at this point:
Trollkin Sluggers are 5 5-box infantry for 8pts, and have:
-1 SPD, -1 STR (but equal P+S), -2 MAT, -1 RAT, -2 ARM, -1 CMD, no fearless, no CRA, +1 POW on weapons, D3 shots instead of 2.

I know its kind of pulling in multiple directions here, but I think trying to translate each rule from 40k directly to WMH is going to be a losing battle. I guess it's a function of trying to combine T+SV to get ARM, but skipping over the idea that marines get their full save vs some classes of weapon but none vs AP1.

Also might be good to place some limits on what you're expecting to see on the table, decide what the standard 'average' and 'elites' are and what is too powerful to be on the table (eg, Railguns). Work out: if the most common weapon available is POW 12, what power then do you have to go to to get Heavy Bolters, Missile launchers etc on the table and are those levels of power really viable spread over every model in the game?
Think a bit about relative points levels as well. 40k allows for 'infantry' models between 4pts/model (Termagants) up to 100pts/model (Broadsides). Space marines are supposed to be quite elite - so are they really best suited as 5 for 5pts or should they maybe be positioned at 5 for 8pts? The latter is more reflective of their 14pt/model price in 40k. If so, where does that put models like Terminators - is 3 points per terminator viable? Should they maybe even be light warjacks at that stage?

   
Made in us
Paingiver







The 'slow cavalry' approach to marines is interesting but if you take them that direction the whole army needs rebuilding from the ground up. Obviously you can't keep all the attachments in the faction with the basic infantry sticking around so much longer at the same points.
I suppose the biggest question here is : Do you want marines to be that durable and robust and what do they give up for that advantage?

   
Made in au
Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control





Adelaide, South Australia

Trasvi wrote:
re bookkeeping - meh. My favourite hordes army consists nearly entirely of multi-box models (mulg, axer, double warders, champs, assorted support) and it isn't difficult at all to keep track of. I think the bigger issue is that 50%+ of armies in 40k will be 50%+ composed of models with the same profile.
As a troll player I also don't have a problem with all medium based infantry

We did originally have an idea (one of many) to make *each marine* a stand alone solo with wounds and appropriate stats. Really going for fluff accuracy. The approach we took though was intended to be more in line with 40k as it currently is, where marines are really not that much different to other troops. Admittedly this leads to battles where marine casualties would be unacceptable fluffwise but it's a bit less jarring overall.

Also the marines should be leader+4.

That's valid. We were trying to go for 6 in the base unit, 2 special weapons and the UA would make a full 10 man unit. Droping it to five leaves a kitted out unit at 9. There's pros and cos to both ways and I'm not especially wedded to one or the other- the numbers won't hit the 5/10 of traditional squads either way, though I suppose we should go with 5 as the minimum size. I think we should stick with Terminators at 3/5 size though (since you can always just buy a second squad).

Be aware that those marines will still kill a little over 3 opposing marines on average dice. Bringing them down to POW 11 gets them down to 2.5 opposing marines dead which might be a better proposition.

The weapon you're describing would be the Military Rifle, found on Trenchers and Idrians. RNG 10, POW 11 and is the 'basic' firearm of the IK. I would equate a standard military rifle to a lasgun in 40K. Hence making bolters just +1 POW is literally the smallest increase you can give them.

Also consider comparing them to Trollkin Sluggers at this point:
Trollkin Sluggers are 5 5-box infantry for 8pts, and have:
-1 SPD, -1 STR (but equal P+S), -2 MAT, -1 RAT, -2 ARM, -1 CMD, no fearless, no CRA, +1 POW on weapons, D3 shots instead of 2.

I assume you're saying Tac marines are undercosted? Do you think removing the rapid fire (perhaps adding it as a UA ability with appropriate cost) would fix the issue?

I know its kind of pulling in multiple directions here, but I think trying to translate each rule from 40k directly to WMH is going to be a losing battle. I guess it's a function of trying to combine T+SV to get ARM, but skipping over the idea that marines get their full save vs some classes of weapon but none vs AP1

I should point out that my play group, and where this originates from, are all very old school players. Most of us started in the RT era or 3rd ed at the latest and fondly remember save modifiers and cover. A -2 save modifier (from say a heavy bolter) took a marine to 5+ to save but in the current era... 3+. AP that doesn't exceed the SV is irrelevant to the point of stupidity. PA does not better job of protecting you from autopistols than it does heavy bolters. But I'm digressing. In current 40K the only things that affect unit survival are T and SV but in WM/H we also have DEF. Where in 40K a marine will hit on a 3+, be you nimble, high speed Eldar jet biker darting through ruins and smoke at maximum range or the rear side of an immobilized tank at 2" away. 3+. Granted DEF 12 isn't exceptional on it's own but it is fluid- it can go up (and down admittedly). The first wave of marines were DEF 13 but it was deemed too high. Survivability needs to be a combination of DEF and ARM, both of which may change.

Also might be good to place some limits on what you're expecting to see on the table, decide what the standard 'average' and 'elites' are and what is too powerful to be on the table (eg, Railguns). Work out: if the most common weapon available is POW 12, what power then do you have to go to to get Heavy Bolters, Missile launchers etc on the table and are those levels of power really viable spread over every model in the game?

I tend to take hints from WM/H for numbers. In terms of stats like MAT/RAT 4 seems to be on the low end- non professional, levels. 5 seems to be a basic level of training, 6 for competent regular troops and 7 for elites. There's also correlation between SPD and ARM which is pretty consistent too (SPD 6 = max ARM 14) which marines are currently breaking but I'm not comfortable making marines SPD 5.

For weapons, as above, I equate the humble lasgun to the standard military rifle. Ranged weapons really seem to be very slow in their advances after that. If we assume a lasgun is POW 11 (though I'd be happy with 10) then bolters have to be at least 12. Heavy bolters are in there already at 13 (which while it may seem low, is the Reckoner's gun POW). I don't think I'd go so far as to accurately translate weapons like Railguns or if I did, balance them extremely harshly. You could use the Commodore as a guide for larger weapons but they will not linearly translate in anything remotely resembling balanced. :(

Think a bit about relative points levels as well. 40k allows for 'infantry' models between 4pts/model (Termagants) up to 100pts/model (Broadsides).

I think this is where some reclassification needs to be done. Termagants are easily done as similarly cheap infantry- 4pts buys you large number of them in this while Broadsides get reclassified. Instead of units, make each Broadside a solo (or hell, even a warjack with no cortex). I'd actually be really interested to see the Tau done as a warjack based army where crisis suits in general are considered individual warjacks. Lots of battle group spells to represent the commander coordinating and assisting his troops and representing their networked targeting and information. It'd also help immensely with different weapon load outs. Give them clockwork vessel so they're constructs with souls, an accumulator based on other crisis suits so they're self powered to an extent and see how they play. As I said, Tau haven't been looked at yet but that's just an idea.

Space marines are supposed to be quite elite - so are they really best suited as 5 for 5pts or should they maybe be positioned at 5 for 8pts? The latter is more reflective of their 14pt/model price in 40k. If so, where does that put models like Terminators - is 3 points per terminator viable? Should they maybe even be light warjacks at that stage?
There is a an inherent problem with marines in that they're just damn good at everything- there's no real downside to marines save their cost. I'm all for the idea they should cost more, perhaps 5 for 6 in the base unit, strip rapid fire and up the cost of UAs a touch? Remember their 14pts in 40k includes their 3+ save which is far less an issue here. Tough will keep them alive far more than their ARM will I think. I'm wary of making them too expensive for fear of limiting their board presence. Reach is nearly unheard of in marines so their melee capacity is all very in your face.

As to Terminators being light warjacks... it was an idea along with the fluff accurate marines. I think if we went down that path it could be viable. Possibly just bigger, badder solos. 3pts for terminators is I think pushing the limits. I think we want them ultimately on par with other heavy infantry. I suppose you could think of them as most closely approximating MoW bombadiers- good ranged capacity with decent melee capacity who rock in at 7/11 (2.3 pts each). Could be Termies need some downgrading. They have the close combat trait on the fists which prevents them being utter face smashers when charging though they can still put out decent attacks. 3 pts might be a bit much but 2.5 each could be workable.

I suppose the biggest question here is : Do you want marines to be that durable and robust and what do they give up for that advantage?
This is the question. I've tried to make them at least somewhat accurate to where they are in 40k now. I think they do, at present, probably put out a bit too much firepower but that is easily fixed. I suppose there's some real arguments to be made for marines being a 40mm based army like trolls but I'm not sure that path is going to work. I'm sure most marine players have their models on 25mm bases. I guess it's a matter of converting from the fluff or converting from the game. I'm trying to be somewhere in between.

That said, while there's a lot of talk on marines, what do people think of the Eldar, Orks and what's in there so far of the Dark Eldar? What do people want to see next? Does anyone think anything in particular is missing?

Ancient Blood Angels
40IK - PP Conversion Project Files
Warmachine/Hordes 2008 Australian National Champion
Arcanacon Steamroller and Hardcore Champion 2009
Gencon Nationals 2nd Place and Hardcore Champion 2009 
   
Made in au
Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control





Adelaide, South Australia

Just a heads up- there's been some tweaking to all the factions and Dark Eldar phase 1 is now complete.

Let me know what you think!

Ancient Blood Angels
40IK - PP Conversion Project Files
Warmachine/Hordes 2008 Australian National Champion
Arcanacon Steamroller and Hardcore Champion 2009
Gencon Nationals 2nd Place and Hardcore Champion 2009 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





That's one reason I really like this mod. You can make stuff feel far more evocative of the 40k fluff than the 40k system. For example 40K no longer really supports the pink/blue horrors of old. Using the WM/H system we can recreate them with the Whelp Shedding rule, swapping out 'whelps' for 'blue horrors' and boom- you have splitting horrors again! You have the Cultist High Priest in our Chaos line up with Body snatcher and and Spawn Horror (from the Spawning Vessel). In short he can sacrifice his own people, or enemies to his gods to put lesser demons into play. How is that not awesome?


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.

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.
   
Made in au
Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control





Adelaide, South Australia

 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?'
   
Made in us
Trollkin Champion





Indiana

Just looking over it quickly, a bolt pistol should not be power 12. That's way too high. As some others have mentioned the shooting just looks overpowered.

"You have to be realistic about these things." Logen Ninefingers.
 
   
Made in au
Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control





Adelaide, South Australia

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.

Ancient Blood Angels
40IK - PP Conversion Project Files
Warmachine/Hordes 2008 Australian National Champion
Arcanacon Steamroller and Hardcore Champion 2009
Gencon Nationals 2nd Place and Hardcore Champion 2009 
   
Made in fr
Hallowed Canoness





 Kojiro wrote:
And for any Sisters fans out there...

I compared them to the marines below, and for the same point you get the same number of models,yet Sisters are:
- Less durable (no Tough, no multiple HP)
- Less powerful shooting (for some reason, their bolter fire only once per round while the marines can shoot twice per round)
- Less powerful close combat
Even comparing to the marines in the OP, they deal way less damage both shooting and close combat, and have comparable durability (because +1 def and the prayer, but loosing though).
Maybe lower their point and/or give them the same bolters?

"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1 
   
Made in au
Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control





Adelaide, South Australia

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

I compared them to the marines below, and for the same point you get the same number of models,yet Sisters are:
- Less durable (no Tough, no multiple HP)
- Less powerful shooting (for some reason, their bolter fire only once per round while the marines can shoot twice per round)
- Less powerful close combat
Even comparing to the marines in the OP, they deal way less damage both shooting and close combat, and have comparable durability (because +1 def and the prayer, but loosing though).
Maybe lower their point and/or give them the same bolters?

Well spotted! As I said, the SoB so far are pretty off the cuff. To answer each point:
- Marines don't have the 5 wounds thing yet, that's a possible change. At the moment they're 1 wound like SoB (just like 40K). Sisters have +1 DEF so the gulf in survivability is not huge, though it should be there.
-Yeah that's a mistake by me. I will need to correct the Bolter profile to be consistent. Marines will be (likely) losing Dual Shot so they'll also be in line. I like dual shot but it's a consistent complaint so I defer to the majority.
- SoB are only slightly less powerful in melee (as I would think they should be). That said I think for PA they should probably be STR 7.

The goal with SoB was to make them slightly less than marines in terms of raw numbers but give them the faith based abilities to make it up so they'd be reasonably similarly costed. Marines with less 'fixed' and more adaptability if that makes sense? But I think stripping back the marine bolters and upping the SoB STR to 7 should do the trick?


Ancient Blood Angels
40IK - PP Conversion Project Files
Warmachine/Hordes 2008 Australian National Champion
Arcanacon Steamroller and Hardcore Champion 2009
Gencon Nationals 2nd Place and Hardcore Champion 2009 
   
Made in fr
Hallowed Canoness





Well, as far as survivability goes, I will take Tough over +1 def every time! Add in Fearless and the grenade, and this makes them clearly worse than the tactical, even with the prayers, imho.
Let us see what others think about it.

"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1 
   
 
Forum Index » Privateer Press Miniature Games (Warmachine & Hordes)
Go to: