Callous_Typhon wrote:

Because they weren't designed to be hand flamers, Poisonous death cloud for anti assaulting troops (just anti-infantry in general.)
edit: Is there any reason Handflamers can't have the same range as standard flamers?

To further differentiate them from normal flamers, to show they have less propelent, any number of reasons along side the fact they already have Hand Flamers in 8e and they are 6" Range.

For the poison death cloud they could easily function as something akin to an aura, where it being 6" or even 7" would make sense.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

Callous_Typhon wrote:

Because they weren't designed to be hand flamers, Poisonous death cloud for anti assaulting troops (just anti-infantry in general.)
edit: Is there any reason Handflamers can't have the same range as standard flamers?

To further differentiate them from normal flamers, to show they have less propelent, any number of reasons along side the fact they already have Hand Flamers in 8e and they are 6" Range.

For the poison death cloud they could easily function as something akin to an aura, where it being 6" or even 7" would make sense.

So basically every Gravewarden has a 7in template on him, causes disorganized charge and the related rules attached?
If I'm reading that right?

nvm

Callous_Typhon wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

Callous_Typhon wrote:

Because they weren't designed to be hand flamers, Poisonous death cloud for anti assaulting troops (just anti-infantry in general.)
edit: Is there any reason Handflamers can't have the same range as standard flamers?

To further differentiate them from normal flamers, to show they have less propelent, any number of reasons along side the fact they already have Hand Flamers in 8e and they are 6" Range.

For the poison death cloud they could easily function as something akin to an aura, where it being 6" or even 7" would make sense.

So basically every Gravewarden has a 7in template on him, causes disorganized charge and the related rules attached?
If I'm reading that right?

They could, but I doubt it, making it so that a squad charging them doesn't get to attack in the charge phase is already pretty strong.

Hi there Grimtofer, To answer your question

"I'm not quite sure what you mean by "GW's change" in this case. And although volkite weapons are better than their bolter counterparts that is compensated for by their increased costs relatively. Isn't it?"

To the first part they removed the 7th 30k "volkite" rule, and just made it Damage 2, quite bland and frankly boring as a change, this had the knock on effect of making the Volkites better than all Bolt variants.

Volkites have either assault (so can advance and shoot) or a better range, all are stronger than the standard bolter and comparable to the Heavy bolter, with more shots in the case of the Culverin (I.E the Heavy version of the weapon), as it stands now the change that was implemented just makes volkites an auto take over any of the bolt family if possible.

Personally I would like to see the Volkite regain its previous rule so there is a chance at getting extra wounds, this would keep it in the same price range of the standard bolter rather than being flat out better for minimal cost.

Hi, just came by to say I like what you did so far. Keep it up.

I love this project. Please tell me mechanicum are coming next!?!?

So , just a question, if anyone's inclined to dissect it,...
Is the Hardened armor for breacher squad (5+ invuln) to much for infantry? At this,I'd wonder why even take Terminators.
What about "6+ invuln, and Re-roll all failed armor saves if the weapon's strength is Str 6 or less?" (or something similar.)
Short version, Nerf it.

Legion Vet Tac Squad
Marksmen: Should this just be "Add 6 inches +1AP to your Bolter/Combi-Weapon profile." (not the alternate combi weapon, just bolter.)

Suggestion for Leviathan Dreadnought,
Storm cannon for variety, pick one per Storm cannon
Range, Type, Str, AP, D, Ability
24, 4 , 7 , 3 , D3, Sunder
24 8 , 5 , 3 , 2 ,
24 12 , 3 , 4 , 1 , Pinning/ Reroll failed hits

That's all. Breacher and Vet question are my biggest complaints at the moment.

Callous_Typhon wrote:


Suggestion for Leviathan Dreadnought,
Storm cannon for variety, pick one per Storm cannon
Range, Type, Str, AP, D, Ability
24, 4 , 7 , 3 , D3, Sunder
24 8 , 5 , 3 , 2 ,
24 12 , 3 , 4 , 1 , Pinning/ Reroll failed hits

The Storm Cannon as they have it written is exactly the same as FW has it written in the Index.

Actually, Hardened Armour is ALSO identical to how FW has written it in the index. There are FW characters with Void Hardened Armour which translates to 5+ inv.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that it isn’t too powerful And if that’s too powerful then we can change it. Personally, I’ve found that breachers (which were always a bit of a problem/underwhelming unit) are now actually pretty resilient, but without the heavy firepower or cc might a unit of terminators can put out.

Totally see the point about Veteran rules, though. We need to have a look at those!

Callous_Typhon wrote:
So , just a question, if anyone's inclined to dissect it,...
Is the Hardened armor for breacher squad (5+ invuln) to much for infantry? At this,I'd wonder why even take Terminators.
What about "6+ invuln, and Re-roll all failed armor saves if the weapon's strength is Str 6 or less?" (or something similar.)
Short version, Nerf it.

Legion Vet Tac Squad
Marksmen: Should this just be "Add 6 inches +1AP to your Bolter/Combi-Weapon profile." (not the alternate combi weapon, just bolter.)

Suggestion for Leviathan Dreadnought,
Storm cannon for variety, pick one per Storm cannon
Range, Type, Str, AP, D, Ability
24, 4 , 7 , 3 , D3, Sunder
24 8 , 5 , 3 , 2 ,
24 12 , 3 , 4 , 1 , Pinning/ Reroll failed hits

That's all. Breacher and Vet question are my biggest complaints at the moment.

Breachers should just go back to 6++ for shooting, 5++ for combat, thats it, hardened armour should also just revert to RR saves vs weapons with multiple hits d3,d6 etc. (AKA old blast weapons), both of the changes were needless.

Markmen should just confer sniper as it adds the much needed sniper rule for legions.

The Storm cannon is from the index so I dont really have an issue with it per say.

 Formosa wrote:

Callous_Typhon wrote:
So , just a question, if anyone's inclined to dissect it,...
Is the Hardened armor for breacher squad (5+ invuln) to much for infantry? At this,I'd wonder why even take Terminators.
What about "6+ invuln, and Re-roll all failed armor saves if the weapon's strength is Str 6 or less?" (or something similar.)
Short version, Nerf it.

Legion Vet Tac Squad
Marksmen: Should this just be "Add 6 inches +1AP to your Bolter/Combi-Weapon profile." (not the alternate combi weapon, just bolter.)

Suggestion for Leviathan Dreadnought,
Storm cannon for variety, pick one per Storm cannon
Range, Type, Str, AP, D, Ability
24, 4 , 7 , 3 , D3, Sunder
24 8 , 5 , 3 , 2 ,
24 12 , 3 , 4 , 1 , Pinning/ Reroll failed hits

That's all. Breacher and Vet question are my biggest complaints at the moment.

Breachers should just go back to 6++ for shooting, 5++ for combat, thats it, hardened armour should also just revert to RR saves vs weapons with multiple hits d3,d6 etc. (AKA old blast weapons), both of the changes were needless.

Markmen should just confer sniper as it adds the much needed sniper rule for legions.

The Storm cannon is from the index so I dont really have an issue with it per say.

But Hardened Armor is also from the Index (like Arbitorlan pointed out), Carnac Commodus has it.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

Callous_Typhon wrote:
So , just a question, if anyone's inclined to dissect it,...
Is the Hardened armor for breacher squad (5+ invuln) to much for infantry? At this,I'd wonder why even take Terminators.
What about "6+ invuln, and Re-roll all failed armor saves if the weapon's strength is Str 6 or less?" (or something similar.)
Short version, Nerf it.

Legion Vet Tac Squad
Marksmen: Should this just be "Add 6 inches +1AP to your Bolter/Combi-Weapon profile." (not the alternate combi weapon, just bolter.)

Suggestion for Leviathan Dreadnought,
Storm cannon for variety, pick one per Storm cannon
Range, Type, Str, AP, D, Ability
24, 4 , 7 , 3 , D3, Sunder
24 8 , 5 , 3 , 2 ,
24 12 , 3 , 4 , 1 , Pinning/ Reroll failed hits

That's all. Breacher and Vet question are my biggest complaints at the moment.

Breachers should just go back to 6++ for shooting, 5++ for combat, thats it, hardened armour should also just revert to RR saves vs weapons with multiple hits d3,d6 etc. (AKA old blast weapons), both of the changes were needless.

Markmen should just confer sniper as it adds the much needed sniper rule for legions.

The Storm cannon is from the index so I dont really have an issue with it per say.

But Hardened Armor is also from the Index (like Arbitorlan pointed out), Carnac Commodus has it.

Yep I am aware of that, However as I have said in another post, this is a homebrew set of rules, and as such can and should be used to dispose of the "poor" design choices that GW has made, they have already done it for several units and weapons, so the will is there.

So far the biggest issues I have seen so far in terms of gelling with the new system are

Not buffing multi wound terminators/creatures in line with 8th
Volkite and several other weapons either being straight better than equiv weapons for little to no cost (mostly GW fault)
Needless or pointless changes in rules

I am fine with none of these being changed as its not my homebrew set of rules, but I will continue to point out any head scratchers that come up.

I dont see how hardened armor doesnt make sense though. I think the problem mostly lies with Boarding Shields giving them +1 to Saves vs 1 Damage Weapons. Because as written it boosts their 5++ to a 4++ (and 3+ to a 2++) vs alot of weapons. Though perhaps lowering the Hardened Armor Sv to 6++ and keeping the shield as is would be fine, bringing them to the 5++ they currently have vs Bolters, flamers and non supercharged plasma. Though it would still give them the 2+ armor save.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
I dont see how hardened armor doesnt make sense though. I think the problem mostly lies with Boarding Shields giving them +1 to Saves vs 1 Damage Weapons. Because as written it boosts their 5++ to a 4++ (and 3+ to a 2++) vs alot of weapons. Though perhaps lowering the Hardened Armor Sv to 6++ and keeping the shield as is would be fine, bringing them to the 5++ they currently have vs Bolters, flamers and non supercharged plasma. Though it would still give them the 2+ armor save.

Its not that specific rule that doesnt make sense, its the change that doesnt make sense.


Old Boarding shield: 6++/5++, dont get an extra attack for 2CCW.

New Boarding shield: +1 Sv against dam 1 weapons.

Old hardened armour: rr saves vs blast weapons

New Hardened armour: 5++

So what we have here is a pointless changing of rules that are not needed, what I would have done (apart from not actually changing the rule... that works)

New shield: 5++

New armour: +1 to save vs dam 1 weapons

Now that makes a hell of a lot more sense and is keeping with the previous rules.

For some reason multi-quote isn't working for me today. So I'll quote this one post and respond to your other points as well.

 Formosa wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
I dont see how hardened armor doesnt make sense though. I think the problem mostly lies with Boarding Shields giving them +1 to Saves vs 1 Damage Weapons. Because as written it boosts their 5++ to a 4++ (and 3+ to a 2++) vs alot of weapons. Though perhaps lowering the Hardened Armor Sv to 6++ and keeping the shield as is would be fine, bringing them to the 5++ they currently have vs Bolters, flamers and non supercharged plasma. Though it would still give them the 2+ armor save.

Its not that specific rule that doesnt make sense, its the change that doesnt make sense.


Old Boarding shield: 6++/5++, dont get an extra attack for 2CCW.

New Boarding shield: +1 Sv against dam 1 weapons.

Old hardened armour: rr saves vs blast weapons

New Hardened armour: 5++

So what we have here is a pointless changing of rules that are not needed, what I would have done (apart from not actually changing the rule... that works)

New shield: 5++

New armour: +1 to save vs dam 1 weapons

Now that makes a hell of a lot more sense and is keeping with the previous rules.

Firstly the boarding shield is something I need to re-write because it's not very clear atm, but the boarding shield is intended to work in the same way as cover. Thus it adds only to armour saving throws and not to invulnerable saves (It'll be clarified in the next release, I promise).

The reasoning for us giving the +1 save modifier to the shield (outside of FW giving hardened armour an invuln) was that it felt as though the boarding shield would act in a similar way to cover as that is mostly what it is doing. There was also an element of keeping is distinct from the combat shield, which is a 5++ in 8th ed too. Given the disparity between the two it feels disingenuous to give both the same rules and I'm sure someone would have complained if we combined the two items. We also considered other options for both the armour and shield rules including one that would have attempted to replicate the old hardened armour by reducing the number of attacks that 'blast' weapons could fire at the unit. In the end the result was too clunky and either did very little or completely neutered 'blast' weapons (most of which are already lesser than they were. Lastly I think that re-rolling saves is a mechanic I would prefer to avoid due to it having an exponential return as armour save increases as opposed to the linear return of the +1 save mechanic. Plus the +1 has a built in limit that is the automatic failure of saves on a roll of a 1, which is just not the case for re-rolls.


Moving onto your Volkite concerns. I'm not convinced that Volkite is inherently superior in all aspects, as in spite of numerous profile advantages it still lacks any form of AP. This makes it significantly less effective against all targets than it might otherwise be. Also the cost we currently have for the Volkite Culverin is 18 points compared to the 10 for a Heavy Bolter. That is not an inconsiderable difference when you start equipping them to whole squads. In fact at that point cost it would probably be fairer to compare the Volkite Culverin to a Twin Heavy Bolter (17 points) at which point the Culverin comes out less favourably.

Grifftofer wrote:

Firstly the boarding shield is something I need to re-write because it's not very clear atm, but the boarding shield is intended to work in the same way as cover. Thus it adds only to armour saving throws and not to invulnerable saves (It'll be clarified in the next release, I promise).

Just make it give cover to the unit then. Simple, unambiguous.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Grifftofer wrote:

Firstly the boarding shield is something I need to re-write because it's not very clear atm, but the boarding shield is intended to work in the same way as cover. Thus it adds only to armour saving throws and not to invulnerable saves (It'll be clarified in the next release, I promise).

Just make it give cover to the unit then. Simple, unambiguous.

Thats not a bad idea per se, but ignores cover would then negate it, which for "flamer" type weapons is fine, but iron warriors for example ignoring them seems rather odd?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grifftofer wrote:
For some reason multi-quote isn't working for me today. So I'll quote this one post and respond to your other points as well.

 Formosa wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
I dont see how hardened armor doesnt make sense though. I think the problem mostly lies with Boarding Shields giving them +1 to Saves vs 1 Damage Weapons. Because as written it boosts their 5++ to a 4++ (and 3+ to a 2++) vs alot of weapons. Though perhaps lowering the Hardened Armor Sv to 6++ and keeping the shield as is would be fine, bringing them to the 5++ they currently have vs Bolters, flamers and non supercharged plasma. Though it would still give them the 2+ armor save.

Its not that specific rule that doesnt make sense, its the change that doesnt make sense.


Old Boarding shield: 6++/5++, dont get an extra attack for 2CCW.

New Boarding shield: +1 Sv against dam 1 weapons.

Old hardened armour: rr saves vs blast weapons

New Hardened armour: 5++

So what we have here is a pointless changing of rules that are not needed, what I would have done (apart from not actually changing the rule... that works)

New shield: 5++

New armour: +1 to save vs dam 1 weapons

Now that makes a hell of a lot more sense and is keeping with the previous rules.

Firstly the boarding shield is something I need to re-write because it's not very clear atm, but the boarding shield is intended to work in the same way as cover. Thus it adds only to armour saving throws and not to invulnerable saves (It'll be clarified in the next release, I promise).

The reasoning for us giving the +1 save modifier to the shield (outside of FW giving hardened armour an invuln) was that it felt as though the boarding shield would act in a similar way to cover as that is mostly what it is doing. There was also an element of keeping is distinct from the combat shield, which is a 5++ in 8th ed too. Given the disparity between the two it feels disingenuous to give both the same rules and I'm sure someone would have complained if we combined the two items. We also considered other options for both the armour and shield rules including one that would have attempted to replicate the old hardened armour by reducing the number of attacks that 'blast' weapons could fire at the unit. In the end the result was too clunky and either did very little or completely neutered 'blast' weapons (most of which are already lesser than they were. Lastly I think that re-rolling saves is a mechanic I would prefer to avoid due to it having an exponential return as armour save increases as opposed to the linear return of the +1 save mechanic. Plus the +1 has a built in limit that is the automatic failure of saves on a roll of a 1, which is just not the case for re-rolls.


Moving onto your Volkite concerns. I'm not convinced that Volkite is inherently superior in all aspects, as in spite of numerous profile advantages it still lacks any form of AP. This makes it significantly less effective against all targets than it might otherwise be. Also the cost we currently have for the Volkite Culverin is 18 points compared to the 10 for a Heavy Bolter. That is not an inconsiderable difference when you start equipping them to whole squads. In fact at that point cost it would probably be fairer to compare the Volkite Culverin to a Twin Heavy Bolter (17 points) at which point the Culverin comes out less favourably.

I see your point on boarding shields and Hardened armour, but Volkites, I am finding it hard to see your point.

All volkites are stronger than bolters, which have no AP either, heavy bolters have ap -1 which is ok, but str 6 is better for most tasks, then we add that all Volkites do damage 2, that alone is a distinct advantage over all Bolt variants, then we add the range bands and types

Charger assault 2 15" is less than the bolter, but can advance and shoot, a clear advantage that negates the range difference (i have found)
then we have the Heavy 2 30" variant, this both outranges, damages and outshoots bolters, again the cost is a bit low for the bonus.
and then the Culverin, 45" heavy 4, this outshoot the heavy bolter, out ranges and does more damage, for 7pts more, again this seems too low, or the HB seems too much.

My issue comes from this, in 30k these are fine, as most of the forces you face are marines, but what about nids, orks, tau, eldar etc. these weapons are horrific against them (just as the 7th ones were), I understand its difficult to balance such things and I applaud you for making the effort, I am just trying to point out something I believe you may have missed the bar on.

 Formosa wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Grifftofer wrote:

Firstly the boarding shield is something I need to re-write because it's not very clear atm, but the boarding shield is intended to work in the same way as cover. Thus it adds only to armour saving throws and not to invulnerable saves (It'll be clarified in the next release, I promise).

Just make it give cover to the unit then. Simple, unambiguous.

Thats not a bad idea per se, but ignores cover would then negate it, which for "flamer" type weapons is fine, but iron warriors for example ignoring them seems rather odd?

Flamer type weapons don't ignore cover though; they automatically hit.

As for other ignoring cover type things: if something is ignoring the cover provided by fortified positions, there's no reason a relatively tiny shield would need to stand up to it. Simple rules really are the best.

Boarding shields are just that, effective in boarding situations where specialized artillery isn't going to be an issue. Don't bring a shield to a cannon fight.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Grifftofer wrote:

Firstly the boarding shield is something I need to re-write because it's not very clear atm, but the boarding shield is intended to work in the same way as cover. Thus it adds only to armour saving throws and not to invulnerable saves (It'll be clarified in the next release, I promise).

Just make it give cover to the unit then. Simple, unambiguous.

Thats not a bad idea per se, but ignores cover would then negate it, which for "flamer" type weapons is fine, but iron warriors for example ignoring them seems rather odd?

Flamer type weapons don't ignore cover though; they automatically hit.

As for other ignoring cover type things: if something is ignoring the cover provided by fortified positions, there's no reason a relatively tiny shield would need to stand up to it. Simple rules really are the best.

Boarding shields are just that, effective in boarding situations where specialized artillery isn't going to be an issue. Don't bring a shield to a cannon fight.

Yeah I know flamers dont ignore cover, I was just saying that type of weapon could ignore the bonus, and yep ignores cover does ignore that kind of cover, which is odd in and of itself, but i see your point, it just seems reather clunky.

 Formosa wrote:

Yeah I know flamers dont ignore cover, I was just saying that type of weapon could ignore the bonus, and yep ignores cover does ignore that kind of cover, which is odd in and of itself, but i see your point, it just seems reather clunky.

Where's the clunk? We already have rules in 8th edition that make units count as covered. It's a simple +1. Seems incredibly streamlined.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

Yeah I know flamers dont ignore cover, I was just saying that type of weapon could ignore the bonus, and yep ignores cover does ignore that kind of cover, which is odd in and of itself, but i see your point, it just seems reather clunky.

Where's the clunk? We already have rules in 8th edition that make units count as covered. It's a simple +1. Seems incredibly streamlined.

Thematically clunky, the rule in and of itself I have seen your point, but I'm talking about how others interact with it, iron warriors having the ability to somehow ignore fortification cover, shields, cloaking devices etc. Because of straight ignores cover, it's too broad, not op or anything just clunky and too sweeping.

But I know it's a game and these things happen for the sake of gameplay.

Well the issue of Volkite has been brought up our other discussion thread as well. And there seems to be a wide consensus that people would rather have the return of Deflagrate as a special rule over the current +1 Damage. So it looks like we'll be implementing that with the next update. We're currently thinking of taking the rule from the Volkite Chieorovile:

Each time you make a wound roll of 6+ for this weapon, the weapon scores an additional automatic hit at the weapons normal profile which is resolved after the initial attacks for the weapon on the same unit. These additional hits do not themselves generate more additional hits.

What are people's thoughts on this instead of them having Damage 2? (Please note that there will be some points adjustment to reflect the new profiles)

I'll have to think about the boarding shields a bit more. They will definitely be getting a re-write, but whether they simply give cover or provide a similar benefit but one without the associated rule interactions I'm not sure about yet.

Grifftofer wrote:
Well the issue of Volkite has been brought up our other discussion thread as well. And there seems to be a wide consensus that people would rather have the return of Deflagrate as a special rule over the current +1 Damage. So it looks like we'll be implementing that with the next update. We're currently thinking of taking the rule from the Volkite Chieorovile:

Each time you make a wound roll of 6+ for this weapon, the weapon scores an additional automatic hit at the weapons normal profile which is resolved after the initial attacks for the weapon on the same unit. These additional hits do not themselves generate more additional hits.

What are people's thoughts on this instead of them having Damage 2? (Please note that there will be some points adjustment to reflect the new profiles)

I'll have to think about the boarding shields a bit more. They will definitely be getting a re-write, but whether they simply give cover or provide a similar benefit but one without the associated rule interactions I'm not sure about yet.

That is not amazing BUT! its not as horrific against a lot of armies as the original Deflagrate (quite easy to wipe out entire mobs with a culverin sqaud), so I would agree with that change, it would mean there current cost could remain the same too rather than going up.

where are you guys discussing this as I would like to get involved too, PM me please.

Formosa wrote:
where are you guys discussing this as I would like to get involved too, PM me please.

ArbitorIan wrote:
Legiones Astartes: Rules/Discussion Thread

Volkite should be the same in 30k as 40k.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Volkite should be the same in 30k as 40k.

What's your reasoning for this?

It's easy to explain a difference, they actually have a grasp of how it works in 30k, in 40k they don't and it's a relic that doesn't work as it once did.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Volkite should be the same in 30k as 40k.

I agree that we should be keeping th8ngs as close to published 40k as possible - it’s what stops this being dismissed as a simple fan-made ‘homebrew’ (as many community rules are) and makes it easier for people to play alongside regular 8ed 40k.

But with the current 40k rules, there are two different published volkite rules. The SM Volkite Charger is Damage 2. The FW 40k Knight weapons have a ‘deflagrate’ rule. So either are available for us.

There is, of course, a middle ground where lower power volkites are damage 2, and only gain deflagrate with the higher powered versions, but that might be a bit clunky.

I have absolutely no problem, inherently, with the idea that Volkites are better anti-horde weapons than Heavy Bolters, as long as the points reflect this.

Add Volkite Blaster to your list of different versions of 40k volkite then (also Ad Mech). And that's the actual one I meant.

To save you some time, they do a mortal wound on 6+ to wound.

You can put that special rule on all your variety of volkite weapon vectors.

It's less game damaging when spammed than either deflagrate or 2 damage. We know this because spamming that kind of weapon already exists in 40k and people largely consider it non-issue.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Add Volkite Blaster to your list of different versions of 40k volkite then (also Ad Mech). And that's the actual one I meant.

To save you some time, they do a mortal wound on 6+ to wound.

You can put that special rule on all your variety of volkite weapon vectors.

It's less game damaging when spammed than either deflagrate or 2 damage. We know this because spamming that kind of weapon already exists in 40k and people largely consider it non-issue.

Not a bad idea either, and I agree with that Deflagrate in 40k would be game breaking, its fine in 30k with so much power armour.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Add Volkite Blaster to your list of different versions of 40k volkite then (also Ad Mech). And that's the actual one I meant.

To save you some time, they do a mortal wound on 6+ to wound.

You can put that special rule on all your variety of volkite weapon vectors.

It's less game damaging when spammed than either deflagrate or 2 damage. We know this because spamming that kind of weapon already exists in 40k and people largely consider it non-issue.

The Deflagrate rule that is on the FW models also only activates on a 6+ to wound, and inflicts an additional hit that must wound and can be saved as normal, as opposed to the automatic damage (mostly) of a mortal wound. As such I'm struggling to see how spamming this version of volkite would be any worse than the mortal wound version.

On top of that is that the mortal wound version would be getting a boost in power over the damage 2 route we've already taken and would be getting the largest increase when used against vehicles, which are not the traditional target for volkite weapons. To compare, the additional hit version actually becomes weaker against all targets except those with 1 wound, where it is about 16% better.

Grifftofer wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Add Volkite Blaster to your list of different versions of 40k volkite then (also Ad Mech). And that's the actual one I meant.

To save you some time, they do a mortal wound on 6+ to wound.

You can put that special rule on all your variety of volkite weapon vectors.

It's less game damaging when spammed than either deflagrate or 2 damage. We know this because spamming that kind of weapon already exists in 40k and people largely consider it non-issue.

The Deflagrate rule that is on the FW models also only activates on a 6+ to wound, and inflicts an additional hit that must wound and can be saved as normal, as opposed to the automatic damage (mostly) of a mortal wound. As such I'm struggling to see how spamming this version of volkite would be any worse than the mortal wound version.

On top of that is that the mortal wound version would be getting a boost in power over the damage 2 route we've already taken and would be getting the largest increase when used against vehicles, which are not the traditional target for volkite weapons. To compare, the additional hit version actually becomes weaker against all targets except those with 1 wound, where it is about 16% better.

I like that reasoning, its a hard one to balance to be honest, make it too good and its an auto take, make it too bad and its a never take, the 30k one as per 7th will mince most 40k low save armies at a longer range (usually) and wipe whole units, the multi wound option (dam 2) makes it a bloody good weapon for nearly everything, forces for FNP saves etc.

Deflagrate on a 6+ to wound causing an another hit seems like a fine balance to me.

Grifftofer wrote:

The Deflagrate rule that is on the FW models also only activates on a 6+ to wound, and inflicts an additional hit that must wound and can be saved as normal,

That's fine too.

Loving the work so far!
Are there plans/timelines on updating the mechanicum book?

 Vulkan_He'stan wrote:
Loving the work so far!
Are there plans/timelines on updating the mechanicum book?

Glad you're enjoying it. As for a Mechanicum file. We don't have any specific plans so far, but you are not the only one to ask so it seems likely we'll try and do one at some point. Unfortunately both ArbitorIan and myself are kinda busy atm so we've not got the time right now to write and maintain another living document.

 Vulkan_He'stan wrote:
Loving the work so far!
Are there plans/timelines on updating the mechanicum book?

Yes, we’re both a bit snowed under at the mo! Once we hit December I’ll have loads more time, but I think a properly formatted Mechanicum document is going to wait until FW release Fires of Cyraxus, since then we’ll have a really good base for most of the units.

My plan is to start on Talons next.

Over on the Heresy 30k forums, a few people have a been writing their own versions of Mechanicum, though. Have a look at http://heresy30k.invisionzone.com/topic/10551-mechanicum-for-8th-edition/

Wow, so glad I found this! Definitely making me consider getting back to work on my 30k army.

Only looked at the Thousand Sons bit so far, but couple of things to note –
• You need to update the wording on Levitate – Copy paste bit still states “Warptime”
• Might want to note whether or not Healing Touch can bring back slain models or not (just as a reference)
• Mindsong of Blades on the Blade Cabal currently says 4-10 and then 9-10 for the upgrades. I presume this is to imply they get both when at 9-10, rather than a typo?
Personally, I think the Asphyx shells should remain the same as before – shred weapons as opposed to the +1 to wound. +1 to wound is incredibly powerful, especially in a marine vs marine setup, but I guess this just needs to be tested and decided on.
I’m also surprised at the, rather big, nerf to the Raptora ability. I personally expected to see this give a +1 to invuln saves rather than a 6++. To me, this will basically make this cult never picked.
I also think the Pavoni trait should be moved to Pyrae, to represent their old style of charging into combat, and the Pavoni would instead be more around something like a 6+ FNP to represent their biomancy aptitude.
I guess, due to Magnus being part of all the Cults, he gets the bonuses from all the Cults? Cos if so, he can only actually benefit from 2 of them.

A couple of issues on the Thunderbolt and Lightning. It looks like you've been going with the 40k rules, missing the fact that these were pretty significantly different units in 30k. This ends up being a pretty severe nerf to two of my favorite units in 30k. Their BS should start at 2+. Both flyers were a point of BS better than their 40k counterparts, at BS 4 vs. BS 3. The BS 3+ they have in 8th edition is fake BS, the -1 to hit penalty for moving and firing heavy weapons bumps them down to their actual BS 4+. To correctly duplicate their 30k stats they need BS 2+ to start with, so that their actual shooting BS is the correct 3+.

Also, various weapons have been massively nerfed, losing what made them special in 30k:

1) The Lightning's bombs were AP 2 infantry killers, not the standard "heavy mortar" bombs of the 40k Lightning. Doing a conventional phosphex stat line is impossible, but they should at least have a bonus to wounding infantry. Something like making the roll to do a mortal wound vs. non-vehicle/monster units a 2+, and the roll to wound vehicles/monsters a 6+.

2) The kraken missiles were essentially long-range melta, not the much weaker hellstrike missiles of 40k. They should have 2D6 damage like half-range melta, not 2D6 pick the highest, and should probably have better AP.

3) Sunfury missiles were essentially a giant plasma cannon shot, not the low-AP flamer missiles of 40k, giving them a complete change of role. They should have AP -2/3 like other former AP 3 weapons, gain the "for every roll of a 1 take a mortal wound" rule, and possibly have their shot count reduced to D6 to match other former 5" blast weapons.

4) The Lightning's missiles in general are weird. You can only take two of them, instead of the former two per hardpoint spent (three hardpoints total), which makes sense as a fair trade for gaining infinite ammunition in 8th but then the Thunderbolt has the same unlimited ammunition but gets to take all four missiles that it had in 30k. You should probably be consistent across all units, including space marine flyers, with how the unlimited-shots weapons are handled.

5) The Thunderbolt lost access to the sunfury missiles that it had in 30k. These should come back, with the proper stat line.

6) The Thunderbolt's AA missiles were far, far better in 30k than the 40k skystrike missiles. They had 2D6 armor penetration and AP 2, and ignored jink saves. For an 8th edition equivalent they should have at least D6 damage, if not 2D6 pick the highest, and a higher strength value.

7) Finally, a nerf. The Thunderbolt should not have the ground-tracking auguries or ramjet diffraction grid upgrades. These were Lightning-only upgrades in 30k.

 Peregrine wrote:
2) The kraken missiles were essentially long-range melta, not the much weaker hellstrike missiles of 40k. They should have 2D6 damage like half-range melta, not 2D6 pick the highest, and should probably have better AP.

Umm half range melta rule in 8th ed IS 2d6 pick the highest, not 2d6 flat out. The half range melta bonus amounts to average of 1 point of damage more. Not double.

tneva82 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
2) The kraken missiles were essentially long-range melta, not the much weaker hellstrike missiles of 40k. They should have 2D6 damage like half-range melta, not 2D6 pick the highest, and should probably have better AP.

Umm half range melta rule in 8th ed IS 2d6 pick the highest, not 2d6 flat out. The half range melta bonus amounts to average of 1 point of damage more. Not double.

Krakens didn't have the melta rule, so I agree with his assessment that 2d6 damage, these things were designed to rip tanks apart (like the rail gun, which should also be 2d6)

 Formosa wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
2) The kraken missiles were essentially long-range melta, not the much weaker hellstrike missiles of 40k. They should have 2D6 damage like half-range melta, not 2D6 pick the highest, and should probably have better AP.

Umm half range melta rule in 8th ed IS 2d6 pick the highest, not 2d6 flat out. The half range melta bonus amounts to average of 1 point of damage more. Not double.

Krakens didn't have the melta rule, so I agree with his assessment that 2d6 damage, these things were designed to rip tanks apart (like the rail gun, which should also be 2d6)

2d6 for penetration sure sounds like melta rule. Only difference being armoured ceramite didn't work against it and no need to get into half range. It did not cause more damage than melta weapon on melta range though.

So in 8th ed having melta rule without range requirement and armoured ceramite not providing bonus against it keeps style same between editions.

 Peregrine wrote:
Thunderbolt and Lightning (Very very frightening).

Thanks for these - totally missed the point about the Thunderbolt upgrades, and we'll also take a look at the weapon profiles. I agree that, if their ROLES were different in 7ed 30k and 7ed 40k, then we should try and replicate the roles they fulfilled with 8ed stats. I disagree that they necessarily need to be exactly as powerful - especially in the case of the Lightning, where in 7ed 30k it's still practically an auto-take because of how ridiculously good it is! The fact that some of the weapons don't run out (ever) does feel like a pretty massive buff.

Regarding BS, I don't think they should have BS 2+. While I understand that they're effectively hitting on 4+, this is true of every 3+ non-hovering flyer in 8ed 40k - Doom Scythes, Eldar planes etc all get -1 to hit with their heavy weapons and haven't been bumped up to BS 2+ to compensate. It feel like this is a 'change in the game' thing rather than an error where we failed to translate them properly.

Dark Angels Mastery of the Blade is sort of silly that they'd hit a Marine on 2+, but still need a 3+ to hit a Gretchen.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
I agree that, if their ROLES were different in 7ed 30k and 7ed 40k, then we should try and replicate the roles they fulfilled with 8ed stats.

IMO their roles are different, and that's what makes them appealing. The 40k fighters are generic IG cannon fodder, weak in firepower and not even great at the one role (air superiority) where you'd consider taking them. The 30k fighters are the elite of the imperial navy, with the BS 4 of veteran units and a list of upgrades that the common soldiers can only dream of. The 30k fighters are meant to be capable of going 1v1 with even space marine aircraft and winning, and that's a role that has been lost. Even if they're still strong units in terms of point efficiency it's a massive nerf to their fluff.

Regarding BS, I don't think they should have BS 2+. While I understand that they're effectively hitting on 4+, this is true of every 3+ non-hovering flyer in 8ed 40k - Doom Scythes, Eldar planes etc all get -1 to hit with their heavy weapons and haven't been bumped up to BS 2+ to compensate. It feel like this is a 'change in the game' thing rather than an error where we failed to translate them properly.

The point is that in 30k both of these units had BS 4, not BS 3 like the common soldiers of their army. They had +1 BS over their 40k equivalents, and that hasn't been represented in the current rules. If a 40k Thunderbolt hits on a 4+ after modifiers then a 30k Thunderbolt should be hitting on a 3+, and that means giving it BS 2+.

Also, note that the Xiphon, the other air superiority fighter of 30k, has a special rule that makes it immune to the -1 penalty for its heavy weapons, letting it shoot at BS 3+ (except when the target is unfortunate enough to have the FLY keyword but not "hard to hit"). The imperial navy fighters had the same to-hit roll as the Xiphon in 30k, they should have the same to-hit roll in 30k v8.

Any news on Mechanicum?

tneva82 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
2) The kraken missiles were essentially long-range melta, not the much weaker hellstrike missiles of 40k. They should have 2D6 damage like half-range melta, not 2D6 pick the highest, and should probably have better AP.

Umm half range melta rule in 8th ed IS 2d6 pick the highest, not 2d6 flat out. The half range melta bonus amounts to average of 1 point of damage more. Not double.

Krakens didn't have the melta rule, so I agree with his assessment that 2d6 damage, these things were designed to rip tanks apart (like the rail gun, which should also be 2d6)

2d6 for penetration sure sounds like melta rule. Only difference being armoured ceramite didn't work against it and no need to get into half range. It did not cause more damage than melta weapon on melta range though.

So in 8th ed having melta rule without range requirement and armoured ceramite not providing bonus against it keeps style same between editions.

My points is that they are not melta weapons, many weapons share effects and statlines in 40k but have unique rules, this is one of them, its supposed to rip tanks apart and the 40k melta rule rips everything apart, I would rather 2d6 ranging from 2-12 (average 7) range than 2d6 pick the highest at half range, which makes no sense from the weapons original profile, fluff and a update.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Dark Angels Mastery of the Blade is sort of silly that they'd hit a Marine on 2+, but still need a 3+ to hit a Gretchen.

Dark Angels need a lot of work, there rules are completely and utterly wrong and have been changed for the sake of change, take Iron Wing, why make it +1 to wound, +1 to hit worked fine.

Not sure if this is an oversight or intentional, so I thought I'd ask: a lot of the Rites' benefits got changed to apply only to models with a specific Legion rule when Shattered Legions first appeared to avoid allowing things like stacking Stone Gauntlet onto Medusan Immortals, but you've left them applying to "models in this detachment"?

Just started reading through this--

comments below on legion-

Iron Circle should be more than 7 wounds--- a small box dred is 8 wounds, Iron circle probably need to be 9-12 based on the size of the model.

Fulgrim should add +3 CP just like G-man in 40k as the EC where know for martial prowess/military planning in exectuting operations--- Eidolon should be chapter master type rule and prolly +1 CP as he was second in command of the Legion basically. These are changes you could prolly make to alot of the characters where it makes sense based on how things are working in 40k.

Really like the hardened armor rule of a just a flat 5++ not over the top as it wont be worth much most of the time as marines will usually just get killed by AP 0/-1 anyway but actually gives them a save vs heavy wpns slightly better than a 6.

BA- Blade of Peredition- needs added- wounds carry over into the squad as they do in current 30k.

Inferno pistol- only 9 pts now. as 20 was stupid.

WE- would change warlord trait to 5 models.....rarely will you ever have 10 enemies- as most people play with few troops.

FNP is missing on red butchers.

Exhortation of Butchery- needs 6 inch range---only keep it at 3 inches if you use it in the movement phase.

Legatine axe- needs to be at least 8 pts, with the auto wound ability IMO.

Death Dealer: you guys nerfed this pretty hard compared to HH--maybe at least include assault weapons as well as pistols...as pistols is pretty useless really.

Justaerin Terminators- shouldnt one be a SGT with +1LD and +1 Attack.

Tainted powerclaw- would just keep at current HH- re-roll successful invul instead of ignoring...

ashen circle- why 11" move? Jump pack is usually 12"--like alot of the fluff rules add and 20ppm is about right with all those special rules.

Gal Vorbak Dark Brethren- not worth 48 ppm as you nerfed their rend hard-- only have chainswords--so even on a 6 only -1 rend. 40 ppm is prolly closer to actual worth when compared to terminators- and most people still feel Terminators are overpriced if that tells you anything.

Anakatis blade- you have 2 different rules for this wpn- the right one should be the one in wargear description based on HH rules.

Headhunter Kill Team- way to many points for 3+ save model--with all the required equipment they hit terminator point costs per model. Either reduce mandatory equipment or reduce base points per model.

Those things I just noticed from a quick look---decent looking product but still needs work for sure.

I just wanted to say that this is a fantastic project and thank you for doing this.

Is the link at the beginning the most up to date file or is that on the other forum?

Played several games with this over the last few weeks, and while I appreciate the attempt at it, the current rules have ripped the heart and soul out of the Raven Guard, and I suspect it's got a lot more to do with the base mechanics of 8e than anything else.

As a legion that relies on deep strike and cover by nature more than any other in 7th, the change of both sets of rules in 8th effectively completely removed the 'fluff' options, especially with flyers no longer counting for board presence. Deepstrike (A big component of DPA and Decapitation Strike) is so easily denied to large swathes of the board it is silly, and the lack of cover means that an infantry-heavy force that was perfectly serviceable if an uphill battle in 7th is just shredded as soon as it hits the table.

I don't even think giving RG back the outflank ability they used to have would mitigate much either, since the 9" problem persists

I wish I had more constructive feedback to give on what could be changed to make it work.


Also, whoever wrote the Mor Deythan entry has never actually read or understood how RG players use fatal strike. The rend ability was the core of it, not the reroll vs characters.

Saying the rules dont work for specific list build for a specific legion is abit of a stretch.

Played a good chunk of 30k with 7th edition rules--and vehicles basically ruled the game. Most games came down to destroying each others heavy vehicles with the infantry just being mowed down here and there in between as afterthoughts most games.

Its one thing I really like about 8th edition is vehicles are no longer one shot killed nor invincible to weapons. These means that infantry matters a tiny bit more than they did 7th but not by much---its still a vehicle game.

Many people can quote whatever they want---but from play experience I can for sure say 7th or 8th doesnt really matter its mainly about the vehicles and the infantry only matter in most games if both sides lose the heavy stuff.

Been watching tournament play lists as well---and its all primarchs like every freakin game in 8th now....they need to raise points more on the primarchs so every game isnt just primarch face-offs or IG tank parks with chaff.

In 8th vehicles being able to charge and just tie things up is huge esp since they are very resilient compared to most infantry or other vehicles--games can become like bumper cars at times lol.

Which is why IG is still super strong--lots of cheap infantry to screen the tank park...not to mention still cheap smite psykers.

Primarchs work super well still to because they can crush everything in close combat, have psyker powers...and well Gman re-rolling everything is a huge army buff with the right armies.

Back on subject----deep strike armies need their half on to heavy support vehicles with some screening infantry......this allows you turn one to clear jump in spots---and actually makes some tactical sense if you think about it.

chaos45 wrote:
Saying the rules dont work for specific list build for a specific legion is abit of a stretch.

Played a good chunk of 30k with 7th edition rules--and vehicles basically ruled the game. Most games came down to destroying each others heavy vehicles with the infantry just being mowed down here and there in between as afterthoughts most games.

Its one thing I really like about 8th edition is vehicles are no longer one shot killed nor invincible to weapons. These means that infantry matters a tiny bit more than they did 7th but not by much---its still a vehicle game.

Many people can quote whatever they want---but from play experience I can for sure say 7th or 8th doesnt really matter its mainly about the vehicles and the infantry only matter in most games if both sides lose the heavy stuff.


Back on subject----deep strike armies need their half on to heavy support vehicles with some screening infantry......this allows you turn one to clear jump in spots---and actually makes some tactical sense if you think about it.

There is no "heavy stuff" with Raven Guard.... Decapitation strike limits you to 1 heavy support choice and the legion rules under 7th allow infantry to operate without need for transports via stealth/outflank. This is further reinforced because RG have an explicit restriction of "no more tanks than legion units" if infantry play and deepstrike are broken, RG breaks.

In 7th it is possible to make an infantry heavy force work. It requires using that outflank ability, deepstriking close where required to force fire priority choices. In 8th these things are flatly gone, and so is the cover that allowed such a force to operate in the face of bucket loads of high-ap weapons

Looking at it the Mor Deythan are definitely underwhelming. Their unit special rule actively discourages using them in Decapitation Strike by being exactly the same as the army bonus from that Rite.

Played another game today trying to keep an open mind, but the loss of infiltrate/outflank on RG infantry coupled with the garbage effectiveness of drop pods is crippling enough I won't be testing this any further without changes.

Hello! Thanks for the recent ones, I'm adding them all to the list. We're trying to get V3 out in the next few weeks, but the writing of the Battlescribe files brought up about 200 little changes and issues, so we've had a busy week. I'll try and reply to everything recent below.

First, THUNDERBOLTS AND LIGHTNINGS. There's a few ways this could go, so I thought I'd post our little analysis here:



So, yeah. One suggestion so far was to just make Krakens the same as Hellstrikes but with AP-3. This would result in a 6-Kraken Lightning doing an AVERAGE of about 9/10 wounds per turn on any given vehicle, and potentially a lot more (assuming it's hitting on 3+ with Ground Tracking and has unlimited missiles). I'm not sure if this crosses the OP line yet. And that's with only a small advantage over Hellstrikes.

If we did something like that, I'd probably make the weaker Thunderbolt ones D3 damage but give them the sky fire rule.

What do people think?

AnomanderRake wrote:Not sure if this is an oversight or intentional, so I thought I'd ask: a lot of the Rites' benefits got changed to apply only to models with a specific Legion rule when Shattered Legions first appeared to avoid allowing things like stacking Stone Gauntlet onto Medusan Immortals, but you've left them applying to "models in this detachment"?

I'll go back through this. As far as I can tell, it's only the 'second batch' of Legion Rites that specified Legions, but it might be worth writing similar syntax into the first batch for the reasons you outlined.

chaos45 wrote: LOTS OF THINGS!
Those things I just noticed from a quick look---decent looking product but still needs work for sure.

Loads of those are added to the list, thanks! It's a long process of feedback to balance and catch everything, but we're getting there!

WindstormSCR wrote:Played several games with this over the last few weeks, and while I appreciate the attempt at it, the current rules have ripped the heart and soul out of the Raven Guard, and I suspect it's got a lot more to do with the base mechanics of 8e than anything else.

VictorVonTzeentch wrote:Looking at it the Mor Deythan are definitely underwhelming. Their unit special rule actively discourages using them in Decapitation Strike by being exactly the same as the army bonus from that Rite.

WindstormSCR wrote:Played another game today trying to keep an open mind, but the loss of infiltrate/outflank on RG infantry coupled with the garbage effectiveness of drop pods is crippling enough I won't be testing this any further without changes.

Ok, so there's obviously an issue here! As we've said a lot along the way, the writing team haven't got limitless experience with every single Legion/Army, so we kind of rely on feedback from players who play those Legions to tweak it for the better (see Night Lords and Thousand Sons earlier in the Heresy thread!!). None of us are big Raven Guard players.

So, Raven Guard are a difficult one to get right - as you say, this is because big fundamental things in the game system have changed. Sons of Horus have a similar problem in that much of their special rules revolved around reserve manipulation. We're happy for any suggestions RG players might have for how to improve this - especially since you're actually playing games with them!

Out first step is usually to try and replicate the same 7ed rules using existing 8ed rules to keep their play style roughly the same. However, this is always difficult with Drop Pods/DS/Outflank as it's changed so much, and we'd rather not force 8ed Heresy to play by 7ed DS/Drop Pod/Outflank rules just so RG to ignore them. It's also hard as decreasing the 9" bubble can get OP really quickly!! So, is there any other way to represent that play style, maybe in deployment timings or order of deployment? Any ideas welcomed.

If there's no way to completely replicate the play style, then I guess the next thing is to find a similar play style that still feels very Raven Guard-y but maybe emphasises what, in 7ed, were their secondary traits. I guess this is a bit like Tau currently, where people ARE winning with them, but only if they ditch everything they used to know about Tau's established play style and go with core Fire Warriors instead of core Battlesuits.

We'll keep looking at it and see if there's any other obvious solution but, as Raven Guard players, we'd appreciate any input.

Formosa wrote:Dark Angels need a lot of work, there rules are completely and utterly wrong and have been changed for the sake of change, take Iron Wing, why make it +1 to wound, +1 to hit worked fine.

So, nothing has been 'changed for the sake of change' - we usually translated as directly as we could and then changed when people pointed out OP things. But yeah, Dark Angels main trait is a difficult one, too. They should be good at fighting other Marines, and this is their big main advantage (other than cool weapons). But, as you say, giving them an advantage to Hit against marines means that they don't get it against non-Marines - not an issue in the old WS vs WS rules, but an issue now.

As a Dark Angels player, do you have any suggestions?

 ArbitorIan wrote:
Hfor the reasons you outlined.

chaos45 wrote: LOTS OF THINGS!
Those things I just noticed from a quick look---decent looking product but still needs work for sure.

Loads of those are added to the list, thanks! It's a long process of feedback to balance and catch everything, but we're getting there!

WindstormSCR wrote:Played several games with this over the last few weeks, and while I appreciate the attempt at it, the current rules have ripped the heart and soul out of the Raven Guard, and I suspect it's got a lot more to do with the base mechanics of 8e than anything else.

VictorVonTzeentch wrote:Looking at it the Mor Deythan are definitely underwhelming. Their unit special rule actively discourages using them in Decapitation Strike by being exactly the same as the army bonus from that Rite.

WindstormSCR wrote:Played another game today trying to keep an open mind, but the loss of infiltrate/outflank on RG infantry coupled with the garbage effectiveness of drop pods is crippling enough I won't be testing this any further without changes.

Ok, so there's obviously an issue here! As we've said a lot along the way, the writing team haven't got limitless experience with every single Legion/Army, so we kind of rely on feedback from players who play those Legions to tweak it for the better (see Night Lords and Thousand Sons earlier in the Heresy thread!!). None of us are big Raven Guard players.

So, Raven Guard are a difficult one to get right - as you say, this is because big fundamental things in the game system have changed. Sons of Horus have a similar problem in that much of their special rules revolved around reserve manipulation. We're happy for any suggestions RG players might have for how to improve this - especially since you're actually playing games with them!

Out first step is usually to try and replicate the same 7ed rules using existing 8ed rules to keep their play style roughly the same. However, this is always difficult with Drop Pods/DS/Outflank as it's changed so much, and we'd rather not force 8ed Heresy to play by 7ed DS/Drop Pod/Outflank rules just so RG to ignore them. It's also hard as decreasing the 9" bubble can get OP really quickly!! So, is there any other way to represent that play style, maybe in deployment timings or order of deployment? Any ideas welcomed.

If there's no way to completely replicate the play style, then I guess the next thing is to find a similar play style that still feels very Raven Guard-y but maybe emphasises what, in 7ed, were their secondary traits. I guess this is a bit like Tau currently, where people ARE winning with them, but only if they ditch everything they used to know about Tau's established play style and go with core Fire Warriors instead of core Battlesuits.

We'll keep looking at it and see if there's any other obvious solution but, as Raven Guard players, we'd appreciate any input.

Well you guys specifically have the Alpha Legion have both an infiltrate and scout like Option. So maybe just drop one on the RG, keep it a 18" buffer so they can't instantly pull off charges.

More Deythan and Decapitation Strike is a bigger issue with over lap and being underwhelming. I plan on looking it over with my group and I can post anything we come up with

 ArbitorIan wrote:


Ok, so there's obviously an issue here! As we've said a lot along the way, the writing team haven't got limitless experience with every single Legion/Army, so we kind of rely on feedback from players who play those Legions to tweak it for the better (see Night Lords and Thousand Sons earlier in the Heresy thread!!). None of us are big Raven Guard players.

So, Raven Guard are a difficult one to get right - as you say, this is because big fundamental things in the game system have changed. Sons of Horus have a similar problem in that much of their special rules revolved around reserve manipulation. We're happy for any suggestions RG players might have for how to improve this - especially since you're actually playing games with them!

Out first step is usually to try and replicate the same 7ed rules using existing 8ed rules to keep their play style roughly the same. However, this is always difficult with Drop Pods/DS/Outflank as it's changed so much, and we'd rather not force 8ed Heresy to play by 7ed DS/Drop Pod/Outflank rules just so RG to ignore them. It's also hard as decreasing the 9" bubble can get OP really quickly!! So, is there any other way to represent that play style, maybe in deployment timings or order of deployment? Any ideas welcomed.

If there's no way to completely replicate the play style, then I guess the next thing is to find a similar play style that still feels very Raven Guard-y but maybe emphasises what, in 7ed, were their secondary traits. I guess this is a bit like Tau currently, where people ARE winning with them, but only if they ditch everything they used to know about Tau's established play style and go with core Fire Warriors instead of core Battlesuits.

We'll keep looking at it and see if there's any other obvious solution but, as Raven Guard players, we'd appreciate any input

I'll do some thinking on this, I think the easiest way to fix the drop pod issue is to put the modification in RoW that allow their use, allowing them to be closer at the expense of charging. The biggest problem with them right now is both cost for effect, and the 9" bubble being so large that they often become impossible to place except in the middle of my own deployment zone.

Outflank isn't that difficult to replicate by pulling the wording off primaris reivers or eldar war walkers, but still leaves much to be desired.


Ultimately the biggest problem besides just getting to the fight is survivability. Cover being drastically different between editions has reduced infantry survivability by 1/3 or more, and that is both because of the new AP system, more reliable hits from rerollable effects, and especially the fact that cover is never better than a flat +1 and difficult to meet conditions for. RG infantry played in an infantry heavy style often relied heavily on camo-equipped characters embedded into units and hugging terrain to maintain a 4+ to 3+ save regardless of weapon AP (except typhons, feth those things)

An alternate possibility on the Mor Deythan could be to give them some bonus (rerolls, shoot twice, something like that) when making attacks immediately out of Infiltrate rather than messing with the minimum distance.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
An alternate possibility on the Mor Deythan could be to give them some bonus (rerolls, shoot twice, something like that) when making attacks immediately out of Infiltrate rather than messing with the minimum distance.

Mor Deythan and indeed the Raven Guard in general do not have infiltrate if you dont spend CP on it. So the Mor Deythan need something better and the RG in general need a bonus. Right now all they do is re-roll charges and advances, and have a limit on vehicles.

Coming back to this, I've been bouncing ideas around for a while trying to figure out an answer to the core problem of infantry survivability, and the net result is a bit of a mess of words but seems to work pretty well in practice. The changes to the legion rules are an attempt to mimic more closely the actual practical effects of previous rules.


By Wing and Talon: Infantry units (except models with terminator armor of any type) when set up during deployment, may set up anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 9” from the enemy deployment zone. Biker, Jump Pack and Terminator units increase Strength characteristic by +1 during the Fight phase of the turn they charge.

Strike and Fade: Raven Guard Infantry and Jump Pack units (Including terminators) are always counted as gaining the benefits of cover when targeted by a weapon with an AP value of -2 or greater, and gain an additional +1 to save characteristic if the model is actually in cover.


Fleet was rarely relevant, while infiltrate was the core of the army's ability to place infantry where they were needed, the thought process behind this design is it mimics SM scout deployment rules while preventing things from getting overbearing by restricting from enemy DZ, The second part remains the same with clarified wording that matches 8th ed BRB RAW.

The Strike and Fade rule is an attempt to make unmounted infantry more survivable in the face of extremely heavy weaponry, without being overbearing on the ability of massed-fire anti-infantry weapons to deal with them (a significant failing in 7th imo), it also replicates the old intended effects of cameleoline-equipped characters embedded into units to give them stealth, which is no longer possible. The practical effects are thus: RG infantry shot at by a bolter? S&F has no effect. RG infantry shot at by Lascannon in the open? 5+ save. RG infantry shot at by lascannon in a ruin? 4+ Save. very similar to old cover that made the legion workable without the negative effects of the old system (2+ saves if nightfight... even I thought that was a bit much when they were not modifiable) It's worth noting that cover does not apply to melee combats, which makes getting close in deployment or via outflank appropriately risky.

For mor deythan, the rending ability of Fatal Strike and it's one-use nature was the core of how they were used, but also resulted in some fantastically weird and warped uses of the unit because of the nature of high-volume rending weapons (like combi-flamers). Replicating the old effect doesn't seem like a good course of action, but as created they are very underwhelming.

First change is to give them an outflank capacity in place of the concealed positions ability (retaining the name as it fits well) simply take the wording wholesale from primaris reivers there.

Second change: replace fatal strike with something that is more reliable and consistent than the old 'one shot and done' rule, while leveraging their place as super-recons excellent marksmen. with this in mind the best course seems to be to play up the angle of them being the best snipers any legion has to offer, and give them a reason to keep an otherwise lackluster weapon choice that is usually swapped out first thing. (I've yet to meet anyone who ran them with actual snipers in HH 7th) The other goal is to make them useful inside the unique legion RoW.

Fatal Strike: When attacking with Sniper Rifles, this unit may re-roll wound rolls, and the weapon will cause an additional mortal wound on a roll of 5 or 6 instead.


The only other gripe that really needs looking at is Darkwings, the eclipse missiles doing no damage isn't useful and severely degrades the utility of the vehicle. the simple fix is to change the eclipse missile profile to: heavy 2d6 strength 4 AP 0 damage 1 with the following ability: If a unit suffers any wounds as a result of this weapon, they must subtract 1 from all hit rolls in their next shooting phase.

This follows the intended role of the weapon from the original sources, a lesser-damaging warhead that sacrifices killing power for additional disruptive payload, while also allowing melee assault as the most viable answer to the Legion as a whole.


Drop pods are still an issue, but one that I think runs deeper than a single legion, though I would recommend while the problem persists that the cost of them be dropped down to ~45 to better reflect their niche usefulness at best, and make drop-pod assault a workable RoW again instead of being cripplingly cost prohibitive

Edit: Forgot to add, the above changes have been playtested during 3 games over the course of this week, and no glaring issues cropped up or stood out. my regular opponent remarked that it felt much more appropriate even from an opposing perspective and nothing felt inherently 'bad'

GREAT. This is brilliant. What was your regular opponent playing?

I must say, my immediate thought is that army-wide infiltrate is terrifying, but since it’s 9” from deployment I guess it mitigates itself a bit?

It’s interesting what ‘take’ we have on Raven Guard with this, especially compared with the Legions they overlap with (Night Lords and Alpha Legion).

Raven Guard’s primary ability is to infiltrate, and secondary is a furious assault.

Night Lords’ primary is being scary and secondary is being hard to see.

Alpha Legion’s sneakiness represents itself differently - by being flexible, which might include infiltrate or any number of other things.

It also means we could keep Deep Strike shenanigans as a Sons Of Horus thing.

But yeah, I’m gonna put all this on the list for the next revision.

The only thing that seems a little off to me is the modifiers to make infantry more survivable. If, as you say, we think that in 8ed infantry armies are disadvantaged generally, why would only Raven Guard get protection against that? There are other Legions in 30k that are as much or more infantry-focused than RG - Death Guard, Word Bearers are both really infantry-focused and they have to slog all the way across the board!

 ArbitorIan wrote:
GREAT. This is brilliant. What was your regular opponent playing?

I must say, my immediate thought is that army-wide infiltrate is terrifying, but since it’s 9” from deployment I guess it mitigates itself a bit?

It’s interesting what ‘take’ we have on Raven Guard with this, especially compared with the Legions they overlap with (Night Lords and Alpha Legion).

Raven Guard’s primary ability is to infiltrate, and secondary is a furious assault.

Night Lords’ primary is being scary and secondary is being hard to see.

Alpha Legion’s sneakiness represents itself differently - by being flexible, which might include infiltrate or any number of other things.

It also means we could keep Deep Strike shenanigans as a Sons Of Horus thing.

But yeah, I’m gonna put all this on the list for the next revision.

The only thing that seems a little off to me is the modifiers to make infantry more survivable. If, as you say, we think that in 8ed infantry armies are disadvantaged generally, why would only Raven Guard get protection against that? There are other Legions in 30k that are as much or more infantry-focused than RG - Death Guard, Word Bearers are both really infantry-focused and they have to slog all the way across the board!

I do think that infantry are disadvantaged across the board, especially in HH where the same problem of paying for a generalist statline that is more easily killed exists.

The main justification for stealth tactics on RG is that unlike other legions, we have a direct limitation on being able to use larger numbers of transports, because of the flesh over steel restriction and its interaction with rhinos and auxiliary units.

You could create a similar version of this rule for the death guard RoW that focuses on slogging, I'll have a look there and see what the effects are, I don't play vs DG often (in 30k at least!). Word bearers I have zero experience with, either playing or playing against, which means I can only infer things based on the listed rules, and lack the insight into the nuances of how they play in practical terms.

My opponents for the play tests played, in order: Iron Hands, World Eaters (I lost this one hard, as appropriate but it was close until he managed to close to CC) and Ultramarines

 WindstormSCR wrote:
I do think that infantry are disadvantaged across the board, especially in HH where the same problem of paying for a generalist statline that is more easily killed exists.

The main justification for stealth tactics on RG is that unlike other legions, we have a direct limitation on being able to use larger numbers of transports, because of the flesh over steel restriction and its interaction with rhinos and auxiliary units.

You could create a similar version of this rule for the death guard RoW that focuses on slogging, I'll have a look there and see what the effects are, I don't play vs DG often (in 30k at least!). Word bearers I have zero experience with, either playing or playing against, which means I can only infer things based on the listed rules, and lack the insight into the nuances of how they play in practical terms.

My opponents for the play tests played, in order: Iron Hands, World Eaters (I lost this one hard, as appropriate but it was close until he managed to close to CC) and Ultramarines

Good - that's what I was trying to confirm. If 8ed is set up in such a way that regular Astartes have to really watch out for high-power weapons in general, then I don't think we should be writing lots of rules to fix that - I'd say that it's very much part of the gameplay of 8ed. However, if RG are specifically disadvantaged over other Legions because transports are slightly harder to get for them then that's different.

My concern is a bit to do with relative power levels when playing other armies. Our design for Traits tries to keep them (roughly) as powerful as the 40k Traits. Usually a Legion has a couple of traits which, together, are slightly better than the 40k version, and then disadvantages to try and keep the overall advantage the same as the 40k version (that's how we balance for people playing against Xenos armies!).

The 40k Raven Guard have all the same problems that Astartes in 8ed have. For this, they get army-wide -1 to hit when far away from the enemy (so, better cover) and the ability to PAY for Infiltrate. One bonus, one stratagem.

In your version, they get Infantry-wide Infiltrate, Biker and Terminators get an additional assault bonus AND they have a version of better cover. Plus, they'd get a paid-for stratagem too. Their only restriction in this is the Tank/infantry thing which, while reasonably restrictive, can be avoided (plus, Drop Pods and Flyers are probably disproportionally owned by RG players!!). So three bonuses, one as-yet unknown stratagem, but only one disadvantage.

I'd suggest that one of your three bonuses should be the stratagem. If we went down the 40k route, then that becomes:

Trait - Infantry get better cover
Trait - Bikers and Terminators (who are also Infantry) get an assault bonus
Trait - Restricted tanks
Stratagem - Infiltrate Infantry for 1CP

If we went down the 30k route, then it becomes:

Trait - Infantry can Infiltrate
Trait - Bikers and Terminators (who are also Infantry) get an assault bonus
Trait - Restricted tanks
Stratagem - Better cover (although this is awkward as this is also the NL one and we've already been back and forth trying to balance them a few times!)

Exactly as you're saying above, it's just that one of the advantages becomes the Stratagem - I assume GW went with Infiltrate for 8ed because it feels more like something you'd want to pick and choose how much you use...?

 ArbitorIan wrote:


Trait - Infantry can Infiltrate
Trait - Bikers and Terminators (who are also Infantry) get an assault bonus
Trait - Restricted tanks
Stratagem - Better cover (although this is awkward as this is also the NL one and we've already been back and forth trying to balance them a few times!)

Exactly as you're saying above, it's just that one of the advantages becomes the Stratagem - I assume GW went with Infiltrate for 8ed because it feels more like something you'd want to pick and choose how much you use...?

Trait - Infantry with out the Fly,Biker or Terminator Keyword can Infiltrate
Trait - Infantry with the Fly, Biker or Terminator Keyword get assault Bonus
Trait - Restricted Vehicles with the Tank keyword

Stratagem - Bonus to charging from cover, or when falling back into cover

 ArbitorIan wrote:

The 40k Raven Guard have all the same problems that Astartes in 8ed have. For this, they get army-wide -1 to hit when far away from the enemy (so, better cover) and the ability to PAY for Infiltrate. One bonus, one stratagem.

yes they have both of those, but they also don't suffer from a limit on the number of tanks they have.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

Trait - Infantry with out the Fly,Biker or Terminator Keyword can Infiltrate
Trait - Infantry with the Fly, Biker or Terminator Keyword get assault Bonus
Trait - Restricted Vehicles with the Tank keyword

Stratagem - Bonus to charging from cover, or when falling back into cover

That works mathematically, though it does mean they don't get any cover bonus at all which seems.... odd?

yes they have both of those, but they also don't suffer from a limit on the number of tanks they have.

Yeah, so to clarify.

In 40k they get one free advantage, no disadvantages, plus one paid-for advantage.
The first suggestion above game them three free advantages and one disadvantage, plus one paid-for advantage (not sure what).

To even it out, I'm trying to get it to TWO free advantages, one disadvantage (evening it out to 40k 8ed levels), plus one paid-for advantage by turning one of his suggestions into the Stratagem (albeit a good, cheap one).

 ArbitorIan wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

Trait - Infantry with out the Fly,Biker or Terminator Keyword can Infiltrate
Trait - Infantry with the Fly, Biker or Terminator Keyword get assault Bonus
Trait - Restricted Vehicles with the Tank keyword

Stratagem - Bonus to charging from cover, or when falling back into cover

That works mathematically, though it does mean they don't get any cover bonus at all which seems.... odd?

Well we have to work out then, do we want them to Infiltrate or to have flat bonus' to cover? Personally I think Infiltrate, and then to differentiate them from the Night Lords Bonus, their stratagem doesn't improve their ability to hide but to strike from (or fade back into) cover. I think that's still very fluffy for them as a force that works in heavily in a guerrilla warfare fashion. It would also prevent people from just Infiltrating in, taking massive cover bonus' and saying "Dig me out" which isnt very Raven Guard. Additionally the only way they got a Bonus to Cover in 7e 30k was by taking Cameleoline on ICs and attatching them to squads.

Yeah, so to clarify.

In 40k they get one free advantage, no disadvantages, plus one paid-for advantage.
The first suggestion above game them three free advantages and one disadvantage, plus one paid-for advantage (not sure what).

To even it out, I'm trying to get it to TWO free advantages, one disadvantage (evening it out to 40k 8ed levels), plus one paid-for advantage by turning one of his suggestions into the Stratagem (albeit a good, cheap one).

fair enough

Traveling for the next couple days, so I won't be able to provide a detailed reply until then, but I do think in practical terms that they do suffer from a lack of some way to make infantry survivable that threatens the viability of the legion as a playable force.

I would not use direct comparisons to 40k RG as the trait there is spectacularly more powerful than the listed effects of S&F, which only provides effective +1 armor save vs ap -2 or better, not a blanket reduction in effective firepower

I'm sorry, but I have to ask : could this lead to a battlescribe data ? I would really love it if it was on battlescribe one day,.

 Khornate25 wrote:
I'm sorry, but I have to ask : could this lead to a battlescribe data ? I would really love it if it was on battlescribe one day,.

Possibly?

I help maintain the 40k one currently, and it could be done, but would require more than one person to write and maintain. I made the mistake of trying to solo-support a ruleset with the now-defunct 40k mobile version, and a project that large or as large as this simply isn't feasible as a one-man deal.

To give you an idea, a file as "relatively simple" as the recent adeptus Custodes codex can take about 6 hours to write, infolink and debug, and even then after user bugreps you'll need another hour to fix logic issues. and that's after you've already got a bunch of standards about how things are written.

But in short, yes It is possible to do, as one of the big benefits to battlescribe is that the datafiles are entirely user-created.

Given enough volunteers and interest, it might be worth the time to do.

 Khornate25 wrote:
I'm sorry, but I have to ask : could this lead to a battlescribe data ? I would really love it if it was on battlescribe one day,.

It is! Or at least the first draft is.

The main forums for the project are on Heresy 30k, and there’s a thread developing the BS files here:
http://heresy30k.invisionzone.com/topic/10966-8th-ed-legiones-astartes-battlescribe-roster/

Mastery of the Blade: When fighting an enemy in the Fight phase with the same Weapon Skill, and equipped with a sword, a model
with this Trait may add 1 to their Hit rolls.
• Covenant of Death: If at the end of the game, the opposing force has an equal or greater number of units remaining than an army that
includes a Dark Angels detachment, the opposing force gains +1 VP.

Mastery of the Blade needs changing to
"Any Power sword, Terranic greatsword, Calabanite warblade, combat Knife, Relic Blade (that is a Sword) and Chainsword"

Covenant of Death Needs removing as it was a balance factor added to remedy the DA greater use of powerful weapons, which in 8th they no longer have.

Dark Angels models have access to the following wargear:
1: Any model with access to the Melee Weapons list may choose a Calibanite warblade as their choice from the list.
2: Any Character with access to the Melee Weapons list may choose a Terranic greatsword as their choice from the list.
3: Any Astartes unit with access to Plasma guns may replace these with Plasma repeaters. If this is chosen, all such weapons in the unit must
be replaced.
4: Any Astartes unit with access to Grenade launchers may take Stasis grenades as an additional choice when firing the weapon. If this is
chosen, all such weapons in the unit must be upgraded.
5: Any Astartes unit with access to Missile launchers may take Stasis missiles as an additional choice when firing the weapon. If this is
chosen, all such weapons in the unit must be upgraded.
6: Any Astartes or Dreadnought unit with access to Heavy bolters or Twin heavy bolters may take Molecular acid shells as an additional
choice when firing the weapon. If this is chosen, all such weapons in the unit must be upgraded.

1: Change to "may replace any power sword with a Calabanite warblade for no extra cost"
2: Change to "any Character may replace their close combat weapon with a Terranic greatsword"
3: yep
4: Add "for no extra cost"
5: Add "for no extra cost"
6: Change to "Any unit with the legiones astartes "Dark Angels" keyword and armed with a Heavy bolter or Twin heavy bolter, may upgrade to Molecular acid round for 5pts per model for "infantry" and 15pts per model for "vehicles" with the "dreadnought" keyword.


Calabanite Warblade: Str +1 Ap-3 Dam1: 4pts
Terranic Greatsword: Str +2 Ap -3 Dam D6: 20pts, the D6 wounds is to replicate the Instant death, Ap -3 is because its a power sword variant.

Stasis Grenade launcher and Stasis missile launcher gives access to the Stasis grenade Strategem.

Molecular acid round: Str- AP D6 heavy 3 Dam 1.
This weapon wounds on a 2+, unless it is targeting Vehicles, in which case it wounds on a 6+.
Twin Heavy Bolter with molecular acid round, heavy 6 otherwise the same.
Changed the Ap to D6 to replicate the 50/50 chance that it ignores all armour in the game.

Plasma Reapeater: Str6 AP -2 Rapid fire 1 Dam 1 range 18"
Overcharge: Str7 AP-3 Rapid fire 2 Dam 2 Range 18" "gets Hot"
Slightly increased the range and reliability of the repeater as for the cost, it sucks, removed assault as it was a salvo weapon before not an assault weapon, now for 23pts per model you get a more reliable weapon.

Warlord Traits: I will be doing one for each of the wings.

Ironwing:
Add The Ironwing keyword to all units in the army.
Interlocking fire: Change to "when each vehicle that is bought as part of a sqaudron fires at the same target, they have +1 to hit"
Exterminators: When a friendly "Dark Angels" unit targets an enemy Unit within 12", it add +1 to wound as long as it is using Rapid Fire, Assault or pistol weapons, including grenades, this has no effect on weapons with a fixed to wound roll (such as poison weapons)
Goliaths of War: When a Dark Angels "Dreadnought" with the "Ironwing" keyword targets an enemy vehicle it can Re rolls any failed wound rolls of 1

Re rolling wounds is simply too powerful, I have more to come.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ravenwing Protocals:

Knight commander:Add: May re roll to wound against models with a Toughness value of 5 or more and that do no have the "vehicle" keyword.
Search and Destroy: Bikes and models with the Fly keyword may fall back and shoot, In addition they gain the flanking Manoeuvres ability when they move off the of any table edge.

Flanking Manoeuvres: During deployment, you can set up this unit moving around the flanks instead of placing it on the
battlefield. At the end of any of your Movement phases the unit can join the battle - set it up so that all models in the unit are within 7” of a battlefield edge of your choice and more than 9” from enemy models, this rule may be used by any Bike or models with the fly rule that moved off the table in the previous turn.

Hunt them Down: Models in this army with the Bike or Fly keyword may move and fire heavy weapons without the -1 to hit penalty.

Scour the Land: Characters in this detachment can take rad grenades.

UPDATE - New LA and Legions files ready!

All Documents for this project can now be found in an open Google Drive at : https://drive.google.com/open?id=1c3k0CgT0mK7usziANPHjYKL30doamz3R


Legiones Astartes Army List v 2.20 Change Log


Fixed a typo for Tartaros Terminator Armoured characters not specifying Tartaros Armour.

Centurions and Praetors in Terminator Armour no longer have access to the Protective Wargear list.

Fixed some odd power values for the Command Squad.

Added the option for Tactical Support Squads to take additional chainswords.

Librarians now generate their powers explicitly from the Librarius discipline.

Added Heavy chainsword to the Melee weapons list.

Sergeants can no longer take specialist ranged weapons in Terminator Squads.

Sergeants in Legion Veteran Tactical Squads can no longer take paired Lightning claws or specialist weapons.

Legion Veteran Squad Sergeants can now take melta bombs.

Added the MC Boltgun to the ranged weapons list as a Praetor only option and adjusted the datasheet to match.

Split the bolt pistol and chainsword upgrade options for Centurions and Praetors to remove ambiguity on upgrades.

Split the bolt pistol and chainsword upgrade options for Centurions and Praetors to remove ambiguity on upgrades.

Combi-bolter has been added to the Combi-weapons list.

Added the grenade harness option to the Legion Praetor in Terminator Armour.

Chaplains now get a power weapon (crozius) in addition to their other wargear, rather than replacing their chainsword.

Added the combat shield option to Command Squads that are not in Terminator Armour.

Added the Jump Pack Assault ability to Praetors, Centurions Command Squads and Apothecarions if they take jump packs.

Changed the Breacher Squad datasheet to fix the Legion Sergeant’s wargear options.

Fixed a typo in the Techmarine datasheet referring to the C-Beam cannon.

Added the Light c-beam cannon to the points table.

Added the Cortex Controller option to the Forge Lord Consul.

Fixed the wording of the Librarian Consul so they can now get Force Weapons even when in Terminator Armour.

Reworded the Destroyer Sergeant’s melta bomb option to not include reference to older version of the army list.

Updated the Destroyer Squad to have a 12” move and the Jump Pack Assault ability when equipped with Jump Packs.

Added option for one Attack Bike in the squadron to take melta bombs to fit better with previous builds.

Added the Talon ability onto the Leviathan Dreadnought datasheet.

Changed the Dreadnought Drop Pod from BS 3+ to BS -.

Added the option for Damocles Command Rhino to take a Pintle weapon.

Dropped Techmarine to PL3 to differentiate from Forge Lord

Added option for Sky Hunter and Sky Slayer sergeants to take Pistols.

Edited Apothecary text to give a Jump Pack Apothecary the Jump Pack Assault ability.

Added the ‘Field Commander’ rule to clarify that Master of Armour can only be taken in a detachment using Armoured Breakthrough.

Fixed error in Land Raider Battle Squadron listing & clarified equipment upgrades for Land Raider Proteus and Achilles. Reduced Proteus to PR19 to reflect the loss of the 40k ‘Heavy’ ability.

Changed Achilles-Alpha to PR20, in line with its points value.

Changed the Keywords for Sicaran variants to bring them in line with each other.

Changed the Astartes Battlecannon to cost 29 points, in line with the ususal Astartes/Militarum weapon cost difference.

Added ASTARTES keyword to Sky Slayers and DROP POD keyword to Kharybdis.

Edited wound bands and Leadership for Storm Eagle and Fire Raptor.

Edited Contemptor Cortus to only allow one C-Beam Cannon per talon.

Reduced Caestus base points to 170 to compensate for the cost of the 30k weapons options.

Added cameleoline to the Vigilator

Added Sicaran Punisher, Omega and Arcus from Index:IA and the FW website.

Chapter Approved 2017 points costs updates to Librarians, Terminators, Tarantulas, Artillery, Flyers and various weapons. I’ve currently left the LoW costs as they are pending discussion.

Clarified that Breacher Shields affect armour saves only.

Added the Field Control rule to limit Servo-Automata to one unit per Techmarine

Reduced the power rating cost of Legion Tactical Squads.

Reduced the Reaper Autocannon to 15 points, in line with C:CSM

Changed Breaching Charge to be a copy of AM Demolition Charge, bringing it in-line with how 8ed Grenades function.

Changed Plasma Blaster to only inflict one mortal wound per 1 rolled so we don’t kill Contemptors with it!

Added the Unstoppable Fury ability to all Legion Dreadnoughts that can take dual Melee weapons.

Clarified the rules for taking Dreadnought Drop Pods for single Dreadnoughts.

Reduced base cost of Cortus Dreadnoughts to 84.

Reduced the base cost of Recon squads by a point to reflect the limited use of their mandatory shroud bombs, and updated their Concealed Positions rule in line with SM Scouts.

Changed all basic marine choices to have cheaper additional marines (including Heavy Support squads).

Updated Legion Artillery power ratings, points values and the listing to reflect the latest whirlwind cost decrease and to include the relevant keywords.

Updated Fury of the Legion to be more restrictive in who can use it and only cost more for Tac Support.

Clarified and edited points costs for the different missile launcher types (rad-only launchers discounted)

Clarified which vehicles have access to Machine Spirit as an upgrade and which have it included.

Reduced the PL cost of Centurion Terminator armour to 2.

Gave Mortis and Contemptor-Mortis dreadnoughts the Helical Targeting Array ability to give them an actual purpose! Also updated their base points cost to reflect this.

Updated Xiphon to have the option for Ground-Tracking Auguries as per 7ed.

Altered Consul points costs in line with Darog’s suggestions.

Edited equipment options of the Primaris Lightning to allow it to be equipped in the same way as 7ed models. Modified the rules and points costs for Kraken penetrator missiles and sunfury missiles.

Augury Scanners are back! Feedback required on the rules. Bear in mind that the interceptor side of the rules is now covered by a Stratagem.


Legions v 2.20 Change Log


Added a first draft of the Blackshield rules! (Yay, Woo!)

Added clarifications to the various points tables relating to what the asterisk means.

III - Added rows to the points tables for Palatine Blade and Reaver Attack Squads with Jump Packs.

IV - Perturabo has his bombardment back, and his wrist cannon (and points) have been modified.

IV - Corrected Tyrant Terminators to include the Omniscope from 8ed, and reduced their points cost to make them competitive with Iron Havocs.

IV - Corrected Iron Havocs to have hardened armour.

IV - Modified the Hail of Fire stratagem to better reflect the previous incarnation.

IV - Changed the special ability of shrapnel bolts and the olympia bolt cannon (points cost changed).

VI - Fixed Hvarl Red-blade to have a 6” standard Tartaros move.

VI - Edited Healing Balms to only heal, rather than revive, models.

VI - Added points costs for Caster of Runes and Speaker of the Dead upgrades.

VI - Updated Leman Russ to grant use of the Howl of the Death Wolf stratagem.

VI - Given Leman Russ and Legion Vets in his army the Warriors Mettle rule and adjusted points costs to reflect this.

VI - Fixed a formatting issue where the Yimira stasis bomb’s profile was not visible.

VIII - Updated Night Raptors to include the Jump Pack Assault rule.

IX - Updated points cost for Inferno Pistol in line with Chapter Approved

X - Added the Gun Them Down! Rule to Iron Hands Immortals

XIII - Edited Gahlen Surlak to revive on a 3+ and his Augmented units to never hold objectives.

XIII - Updated World Eaters’ Unstoppable Wave in line with the suggestions in the thread.

XV - Updated all Thousand Sons psychic powers to published powers, in line with the suggestions in the thread.

XVI - Revised rules to represent their previous outflank capability - Reavers now have Flanking Manoeuvres, and a small points increase. Horus grants Flanking Manoeuvres and has a points increase. Black Reaving gives it’s fleet bonus to units using this ability.

XVI - Changed Death Dealer to function similar to the 7ed version. Removed the +1Ld bonus to balance this.

XVI - Fixed Tybalt Marr so his weapons are master-crafted.

XVII - Updated Word Bearers’ Charismatic Leadership to work better with multiple detachments.

XVII - Updated Gal Vorbak to have Rending Claws (as per Daemonettes) as a weapon option, but still along with chainswords (which can be swapped).

XVII - Updated the Blade Slaves IWND to 5+ and their Anakatis Blades to work more similarly to before.

XVII - Updated the Mhara Gal to have more wounds than a standard contemptor, and to have an analog to the Earth Recoils special rule. Removed Gets Hot from the Warpfire Plasma Cannon.

XVII - Updated various Word Bearers rules to clarify that Daemon allies must be Daemons!

XVII - Burning Lore now states that the power generated is from the Librarius discipline.

XVII - Fixed a typo regarding where Zardu Layak generates his powers from.

XVII - Added wargear restrictions from 7e to the Diabolist.

XVII - Added the Destroyer keyword to Ashen Circle to match with their fluff.

XVII - Fixed the Mhara Gal’s <Fealty> to read Traitor.

XVII - Added a points cost for the Axe rake to the Word Bearers points table.

XVII - Fixed a wording issue with Lorgar Transfigured that implied that he forgets Smite.

XVII - Fixed Hol Beloth’s <Fealty> to Traitor.

XVII - Removed Zardu Layak’s Boundless Rage ability as it was superfluous.

XVIII - Fixed Xiaphas Jurr to remove the Mantle of the Elder Drake

XIX - Changed the Raven Guard Legion Traits to be closer to the 7ed rules. Replaced their Stratagem as it was now superfluous.

XIX - Rewrote the Mor Deythan Fatal Strike rule to be closer to the 7ed rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:
Dark Angels Stuff

So close! Literally just uploaded the new updates!

Thanks for this though, we'll go through them and get any changes into the next update!

hahaha sods law, I havent had a chance to knuckle down and properly as I have been away on Ex lol

Reposting from the other site...

 ArbitorIan wrote:


XVI - Fixed Tybalt Marr so his weapons are master-crafted.

YEESS!



Also looking good, liking the changes to the Raven Guard.



One thing I noticed, for the Black Shields Chymeriae, you bring up Initiative



"Tough: Add 1 to their Strength and Toughness characteristics and reduce their Initiative characteristic by 1. Models with this ability recude
their Advance and Charge moves by 1”.



Obviously that will need some sort of replacement.

Additionally, the Pariah Armor might need some looking at. Not sure what I'd do, but keeping it at the S6 makes it 5+ doesnt seem right for 8th. Maybe S6 and Up imposes a further -1 to the Armor Value?

New campaign kicking off next week for us, 18 blokes and 2 ladies testing this out, will post feebaback

Very interesting idea, as I'm keen in seeing 30k with 8e rules.

However, I'd like to point out some stuff regarding Thousand Sons:
- The link between Cult choice and psyker ease to cast (from 4+ to 3+ back in 7e) isn't anywhere. Maybe reducing the warp charge value of linked power by 1, down to 5 max? Or add 1 to the Psychic test (I think this is even fluffier)? And why remove the access to the base Psychic Powers table, when in 7e they had access to anything but Daemonology?

- Does 'Signs & Portents' stack with itself? I mean, if in the same Psychic Phase a psyker casts 2 powers and both generate MW, will the units nearby suffer -1 or -2 to their Leadership?

- Is there any special reason to cut out 12" from Aetherfire Cannon range? It was 36" back in 7e. And why is it a whooping 26p, when it was 10p previously? It seems to be a worse Plasma Cannon (which is only 21p)

- Arcane Litanies... can't find them.

- Is there any situation in 8e 40k that a psyker doesn't know Smite? Non-Character units in your Thousand Sons rules may either know Smite or another power...

- Castellax-Achea is missing the power claws. I don't even know why they have shock chargers instead, as it wasn't an option for them in 7e. Also, it's missing the psi-locus special rule (which was very useful) - how about applying it only to powers that target enemy units? Another thing: their Wounds went up from 4 to 6. Kastelan Robot Maniple (40k Mechanicus) went up from 3 to 6W. Maybe 4 to 8W would be more appealing? Of course, this would apply to all Castellax units.

- Any specific reason for nerfing the number of attacks given by Khenetai Occult Blade Cabal's Mindsong of Blades?

- Why are Thousand Sons' named characters considered Traitors? They weren't in the 7e rules. You could add a special rule saying that something like this: "Vengeance is Mine: This unit will have the Faction Keyword <TRAITOR> instead of <FEALTY> if your game occurs after the Burning of Prospero campaign timetable."

- Ahzek Ahriman's Master-Craft Bolt Pistol don't have the -1AP and D2 as usual for MC bolt weapons. Intringuing, he can cast only 2 powers... being the second most powerful psyker in the entire Thousand Sons legion.

- Magistus Amon's Armour of Shades should give +1 to cover bonus to Thousand Sons units within 3" of him, perhaps? The second part of his ability 'Hidden Servants & Secret Scryings' should work only on enemy units, not all units! Lol
His Warlord Trait should exclude Flyer Battlefield Role and <Titanic> units, not everything with <Fly> (his ability used to work on Assault Marines and Land Speeders, after all).

- Magnus can cast only 3 powers? o.O
His 'Sire of the Thousand Sons' ability is missing the ObjSec rule to normal Terminator units.
Where is his Eye of the Crimson King and Phantasmal Aura rules? His Mind Wrath ability from 7e could apply only to Smite (as it does to his 8e incarnation in 40k). Of course, he'd get a hefty points increase to get these back.

- Bonus: why the Sekhmet can't take a power fist with a free other melee weapon on the same hand? Heresy!

Outside that, good work!

So I've held off on commenting until I could get a decent number of test games in with the new update, and while the update has gone a long way to fix some of the issues (especially deployment) it hasn't gone far enough to make RG workable.

current problems:

The stealth mechanics that are in the raven guard ruleset DO NOT WORK. you've retained the ability for characters to take chameleoline, without foillowing the logic that they can no longer be embedded into squads to provide the stealth USR as was originally intended

The darkwing is patently useless, as it lost the major strength it had in 7e 30k (ability to outflank) while recieving another hit from the missiles doing no damage.

Drop-pods in general and especially Drop pod centric Rites of War are completely useless, even with alvarex because of prohibitive cost

I've alluded to some of these points before, but I feel I must reiterate them as I feel after trying this yet again that not enough attention has been given to just how important some of those reserves/abilites/alternate deployment methods are not just to the capabilities of some legions (RG more than most, but it affects BA, NL and AL considerably as well) but also the entire feel of the game.

combined with the massive pendulum swing in the base 8e mechanics to make every single weapon more lethal against marines, and while 8e HH may work for some legions, it does NOT currently work for infantry-heavy fluff-matching RG.



I feel after reviewing this post that it's worthwhile trying to illustrate the point with practical examples, instead of just saying "it doesn't work".

7e RG notable 'standard tactics':
You must accept that your restriction from 'flesh over steel' means that for every armor unit you want to include, there by nature must be one unit that will either be in a different mode of transport (darkwing/stormeagle) or on foot. This becomes increasingly true when decapitation strike is involved, as it restricts you to 1 heavy support, pushing you towards doing the jobs of those units with other options, usually tactical support sections and dreadnoughts.

As a result of the above, apothecaries are a common element in 7e HH RG lists, as they serve as 'carriers' for the chameleoline upgrade (granting the unit they are attached to the stealth USR) and also giving that unit a 5+ FnP. This gives them just enough durability to survive things like medusa/basilist fire and other significant and common unpleasantness that would simply sweep them off the board if they were not in cover.

Where this breaks down in 8e:
there is no more bonus to cover, there is no source of FnP. any of the heavy anti-infantry weapons so much as looks at a unit, it vanishes like smoke in a breeze. this is not simply "8e being more lethal" but that on top of all previous sources of infantry durability due to 'stealth mechanics' simply no longer existing either.


my last six games using the updated HH 8e ruleset have all borne this out. even trying to adapt to it, RG only lets you go so far, and with the loss of outflank and drop pods being comically useless, shielding infantry from that retaliation by reserving them isn't an option that works either.

The Night Lords, Alpha Legion and Blood Angels all have their alternate deployment methods, the same ones they have in 7 and 7.5 30k. The Alpha Legion just needs to be able to count Advance Deployment for Coils of the Hydra.

I dont think that the Raven Guard can or even should be made much better than they are. Blanket option to give everything Cameleoline? No, because then everything is Infiltrating into cover to get their +2 to Svs, then charging out of cover before falling back into it to be covered by allies. It seems to abuse-able.

Across the board however, cheaper transports might not hurt, because several of them seem restrictively expensive.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
The Night Lords, Alpha Legion and Blood Angels all have their alternate deployment methods, the same ones they have in 7 and 7.5 30k. The Alpha Legion just needs to be able to count Advance Deployment for Coils of the Hydra.

I dont think that the Raven Guard can or even should be made much better than they are. Blanket option to give everything Cameleoline? No, because then everything is Infiltrating into cover to get their +2 to Svs, then charging out of cover before falling back into it to be covered by allies. It seems to abuse-able.

Across the board however, cheaper transports might not hurt, because several of them seem restrictively expensive.

check my edit.

I've been playing RG a long time, and while in 7e they could be abused, some of that needed to be there to make fluff lists function without getting shitstomped. Currently every single 8e 30k game I've played with the new setup has been awful since unmounted infantry simply don't survive. at all.

After the edit I see your point, but I dont think there is much that they can do other than make vehicles cheaper.

Maybe make Cameleoline into a sort of short ranged Stealth Aura they could take.

"units with a model with in 3" of a Model with Cameleoline and the bearer itself gain +2 to their armor saves while in cover." It would be more expensive though.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
After the edit I see your point, but I dont think there is much that they can do other than make vehicles cheaper.

Maybe make Cameleoline into a sort of short ranged Stealth Aura they could take.

"units with a model with in 3" of a Model with Cameleoline and the bearer itself gain +2 to their armor saves while in cover." It would be more expensive though.

tbh I would be 100% fine with it being more expensive, since I'd be able to hit multiple units in the same general 'area' with it instead of having to take a character/apothecary for every single unmounted squad. (as I currently do in 7e)

Lack of outflank is still a problem, but that applies only to specific units (darkwing/mor deythan, mostly the darkwing) and transports being overcosted is a problem for everyone.

 WindstormSCR wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
After the edit I see your point, but I dont think there is much that they can do other than make vehicles cheaper.

Maybe make Cameleoline into a sort of short ranged Stealth Aura they could take.

"units with a model with in 3" of a Model with Cameleoline and the bearer itself gain +2 to their armor saves while in cover." It would be more expensive though.

tbh I would be 100% fine with it being more expensive, since I'd be able to hit multiple units in the same general 'area' with it instead of having to take a character/apothecary for every single unmounted squad. (as I currently do in 7e)

Lack of outflank is still a problem, but that applies only to specific units (darkwing/mor deythan, mostly the darkwing) and transports being overcosted is a problem for everyone.

Dont reviers outflank?

 Desubot wrote:

 WindstormSCR wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
After the edit I see your point, but I dont think there is much that they can do other than make vehicles cheaper.

Maybe make Cameleoline into a sort of short ranged Stealth Aura they could take.

"units with a model with in 3" of a Model with Cameleoline and the bearer itself gain +2 to their armor saves while in cover." It would be more expensive though.

tbh I would be 100% fine with it being more expensive, since I'd be able to hit multiple units in the same general 'area' with it instead of having to take a character/apothecary for every single unmounted squad. (as I currently do in 7e)

Lack of outflank is still a problem, but that applies only to specific units (darkwing/mor deythan, mostly the darkwing) and transports being overcosted is a problem for everyone.

Dont reviers outflank?

not sure what you're getting at, this is for 30K? but yes, "reiver with grapple-gun" style deployment is the closest thing to outflank that now exists, the same ability exists on eldar war walkers and a couple other 8e 40k units.

Eh sorry was miss reading into things.

i though you meant OF didnt exist in 8th.

 WindstormSCR wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
After the edit I see your point, but I dont think there is much that they can do other than make vehicles cheaper.

Maybe make Cameleoline into a sort of short ranged Stealth Aura they could take.

"units with a model with in 3" of a Model with Cameleoline and the bearer itself gain +2 to their armor saves while in cover." It would be more expensive though.

tbh I would be 100% fine with it being more expensive, since I'd be able to hit multiple units in the same general 'area' with it instead of having to take a character/apothecary for every single unmounted squad. (as I currently do in 7e)

Lack of outflank is still a problem, but that applies only to specific units (darkwing/mor deythan, mostly the darkwing) and transports being overcosted is a problem for everyone.

I'd suggest play testing with that form of Cameleoline and letting them (all of us) know how that works out for you. Transport cost will probably one of those things that constantly gets fine tuned as one thing gets lowered to be too good and another becomes too weak.

Will 30k Custodes rules be released, or is the current 8e version good enough?

Is this project dead? Or are you still working on it?

sempthegreat wrote:
Is this project dead? Or are you still working on it?

It's active. We update the documents with all the notes from here and H30k every three months or so.

Hey guys just a few quick questions my mate who is using the wolf kin is saying that the ignore unsaved wounds on 5+ ability also allows them to ignore mortal wounds on a 5+ is that correct, the problem with that is the rule they have converts normal wounds from Russ into mortal wounds against them? And then they just get to save them? Or No?

Also just related to that regarding both the wolf kin and also you honour guard, when you take an unsaved wound on a 2+ from a character on to one of these models how does that work with multiple damage weapons? Do you generate day d6 wounds from a lascannon all against the character then get them off on a 2+ or do you on a 2+ move the lascannon damage roll onto the wolf kin or honour guard and then roll the damage against them and loose anything else if they are killed

Pukemonkey1 wrote:
Hey guys just a few quick questions my mate who is using the wolf kin is saying that the ignore unsaved wounds on 5+ ability also allows them to ignore mortal wounds on a 5+ is that correct, the problem with that is the rule they have converts normal wounds from Russ into mortal wounds against them? And then they just get to save them? Or No?

Also just related to that regarding both the wolf kin and also you honour guard, when you take an unsaved wound on a 2+ from a character on to one of these models how does that work with multiple damage weapons? Do you generate day d6 wounds from a lascannon all against the character then get them off on a 2+ or do you on a 2+ move the lascannon damage roll onto the wolf kin or honour guard and then roll the damage against them and loose anything else if they are killed

So, the 8ed FAQ clarifies how these 'FnP-style' rules work when it clarifies Disgustingly Resilient. You CAN use them to ignore mortal wounds, and they also work per wound, so you roll Damage first and then try to FnP each wound.

I can't remember where we stole the 'Bodyguard' rule from!! Trying to track down the correct FAQ to clarify.

At the moment, by RAW, it looks like you would hit Russ, roll for number of wounds, then try and pass each wound to the puppy, then take a Really Furry save against each one.

This project is awesome! Thank you for the hardwork all

 ArbitorIan wrote:

So, the 8ed FAQ clarifies how these 'FnP-style' rules work when it clarifies Disgustingly Resilient. You CAN use them to ignore mortal wounds, and they also work per wound, so you roll Damage first and then try to FnP each wound.

I can't remember where we stole the 'Bodyguard' rule from!! Trying to track down the correct FAQ to clarify.

At the moment, by RAW, it looks like you would hit Russ, roll for number of wounds, then try and pass each wound to the puppy, then take a Really Furry save against each one.

If you stole that from something in 40k, I don't know where. All the bodyguard units I know of move the Wound, as in the successful wound roll, and turn that into one mortal wound against the bodyguard. Bodyguards don't move damage, the damage just evaporates.

It's easy to mess that up because we use wound in 3 places, wound characteristic, wound roll, mortal wounds. But the thing is, there isn't really wounds taken in 8th, it's damage.

I don't want to sound like a winjing little autist, but I see a noticeable like of death Guard rules updating. Now nevermind my legion preference, but of all three Favored Of (Primarch) The Deathshorud have the least amount of rules to them.
So without trying to make a drama storm, here is my proposal to buff them up.

The Deathshroud's Plate:
2+ Armor 5+Invuln (as usual)
Protects the wearer from the toughness/strength reducing effects from Rad Weaponry.

Radphage Grenades: Radiological Contamination
Range 6, Type Grenade D3, Str2, AP2+, Damage 1
Radphage Grenades create Radiological Contamination-dangerous terrain for the rest of the game. Infintary/Bikers models with a toughness value that cross over the Radilogicaly Contaminated area take minus 1 toughness to their profile for the rest of the game.
(This weapon has to be bought)

Radilogical Tearing: Power Scythe
Range Melee, Type Melee,
Deathshroud Terminators that make a successful Hit to enemy infantry/biker models with a toughness value in the profile with their Power-Scythe take a minus 1 toughness to their profile for the rest of the game After all normal armor and invulnerable saves have been resolved.

As much as I dislike the idea of a "8th edition 30k", I have to acknowledge it might interests people. However, there are only so few French here, so, do you want me to speak about you project on a French forum ? For people who may want to go 8th with their legions but aren't on this forum ?

Having ran a few scenarios and some playtesting, really liking these rules. I’m primarily a IH player, but we tested them all. Some thoughts:

Raven Guard seem to need just a little more stealth: maybe let infantry take cameleoline at +1 point per model?
Or
I’d also consider letting jump infantry benefit from concealed positions

Ferrus Manus: does he really need the penalty and death from a supercharged plasma shot? Maybe just take a wound? Heck of a way to lose a primarch.

PS: how does one get validated on the 30k forum? I’d love to read instead of asking questions already answered... because I know there are so many that have easy answers.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 ArbitorIan wrote:

So, the 8ed FAQ clarifies how these 'FnP-style' rules work when it clarifies Disgustingly Resilient. You CAN use them to ignore mortal wounds, and they also work per wound, so you roll Damage first and then try to FnP each wound.

I can't remember where we stole the 'Bodyguard' rule from!! Trying to track down the correct FAQ to clarify.

At the moment, by RAW, it looks like you would hit Russ, roll for number of wounds, then try and pass each wound to the puppy, then take a Really Furry save against each one.

If you stole that from something in 40k, I don't know where. All the bodyguard units I know of move the Wound, as in the successful wound roll, and turn that into one mortal wound against the bodyguard. Bodyguards don't move damage, the damage just evaporates.

It's easy to mess that up because we use wound in 3 places, wound characteristic, wound roll, mortal wounds. But the thing is, there isn't really wounds taken in 8th, it's damage.

Im not sure I agree with that mate, Let me know what you think about the following. So as per the rule book stage 5 of suffering an attack states that after a failed save you inflict damage and for every point of damage the model suffers a wound. Before that stage the model then has not actually suffered a wound. At least according to the rules. So you would resolve damage first. lets say D6 from a lascannon, you roll a 4 and that resolves into 4 wounds suffered, only after you have gone through stages 1-4 in the rulebook. After stage 5 is complete your model has 4 wounds but then your aura ability would trigger on the body guard and on a 2+ you could move the wounds across to your bodyguard as a mortal wounds (each so you would get 4 chances). This represents your bodyguard stepping in and taking some of the damage. This also happens at the same stage games workshop have clarified that models with abilities like the death guard use the 5+ resilience roll to ignore wounds- what i mean is thats after you actually have wounds generated and know how many there are.
The way you propose the rules to work would mean a space marine honour guard could take a blast from a titan and suck all the damage up as a single mortal wound (they have 2 wounds btw in this 30k 8th rules set) – possible 2d6 worth of damage on some of those guns lol – im not sure thats the intent of the rules or the way its written when you follow the rulebook. Also I though the mortal wounds move from model to model so you could have a body guard squad jumping in the way and taking on as much damage as they can rather than just 1 mortal wound on one model. However id love to hear some other points of view on this? If im wrong then im wrong! I think im morally opposed to it to as it sounds like cheese to me. Rather than a chance to help your characters survive you could make them unstoppable, that imperial guard commander just wont die now!!! haha



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also thanks very much to the creators for all the hard work! I am loving this port over to 8th edition- My Alpha legion feel great in 8th edition without being OP or under powered - thanks guys and thanks to everyone who gives feedback too!

 ArbitorIan wrote:

 Khornate25 wrote:
I'm sorry, but I have to ask : could this lead to a battlescribe data ? I would really love it if it was on battlescribe one day,.

It is! Or at least the first draft is.

The main forums for the project are on Heresy 30k, and there’s a thread developing the BS files here:
http://heresy30k.invisionzone.com/topic/10966-8th-ed-legiones-astartes-battlescribe-roster/

Anywhere else we could get these files? Been waiting a week or so to get my account activated to see those forums.

 Zaku212 wrote:

 ArbitorIan wrote:

 Khornate25 wrote:
I'm sorry, but I have to ask : could this lead to a battlescribe data ? I would really love it if it was on battlescribe one day,.

It is! Or at least the first draft is.

The main forums for the project are on Heresy 30k, and there’s a thread developing the BS files here:
http://heresy30k.invisionzone.com/topic/10966-8th-ed-legiones-astartes-battlescribe-roster/

Anywhere else we could get these files? Been waiting a week or so to get my account activated to see those forums.

We're just in the process of bundling together the BS files and putting them in the Google Drive folder for the project, so you don't have to be on Heresy30k to see them. Sorry!


-------------------------

OKAY

Roll up Roll up and get in your suggestions for the Summer update. Everything you've mentioned since the last update has been added to the list for working on. IF, AL, DA, TS are all due a look at.

I'd also love it if any SW players had suggestions for their Psychic Powers. We've used the 40k ones at the moment, but it was pointed out ages ago that 30kSW are less Killy and more Thinky than 40k ones. Maybe a selection of powers from Eldar or other Thinky/Predicty 40k factions?

Question Re: Salamanders Pyroclasts
Why is the flamer part of the Flame Projector assault 1 instead of D6?

Regarding Space wolves


The SW terminators should gain plus 1 attack if they choose to have 2x close combat weapons just like world eater termis that can choose to do this (thats the point with 2x CCW and thats what a lot of people are doing with them my main opponent plays SW and has modelled them this way its not fair for them to give up a gun and then not get another attack for it) also the termis should not have general access to great frost weapons this is not even part of the kit thats just for the termi sargeant.
also the wolf kin of Russ dont have any model counts as if they go in a vehicle neither does russ.


Regarding Alpha legion

The coils of the hydra used to allow you to use units that did not have a vehicle to mount them in if you used infiltrate on them, could this be worked in at all? that would mean I could take an all infiltrating foot army

Alpha legion used to have outflank due to infiltrate and have lost that and also lost rules that held them outflank further such as the extra inches you gained if you replaced a unit coming on to the battlefield, is there any scope to create a similar rule at all?

the combat stimulants rule is a touch on the weak side, space wolves gaining the counter attack rule as a new stratagem was a stroke of genius, is there any way to replace the re roll ones with the same stratagem at a;;? such as if you choose combat stimulants you get to access to the counter attack stratagem?

im pointing this out as counter attack was my go to rule with my army now im finding my units are not really benefiting from the re roll ones due to already getting that from other sources( for instance if alpharius is on the table everyone re rolls hits of one anyway) . its pretty gimpy now, however i do realise that giving them the +1 attack they used to have is now to powerful

also ive noticed that alpharius used to allow re rolls of hits and wounds of one but now only allows re roll hits of one, was this to powerful before? i though the reason he had great army wide rules was his relative weakness in comparison to other primarchs?

Ive noticed the harrower should have the abilty to take a power knife, the intent previously was for any character type to take them including squad leaders - im not sure how to word that rules though?


just a few things there, i think you have done such a great job with this, im very grateful for all your efforts guys!

Heresy Ruleset Changes

So, I’ve been thinking about a lot of the bigger structural problems a few people are posting, and how to go about solving them.

It seems that a lot of the trouble people are having with certain Rites and Legion Traits is due to the massive changes to deployment, which used to be one good way of differentiating Legions. Originally, this was just par for the course with 8ed - the game removes a lot of the Outflanking possibilities and subtlety from the Deep Strike / Reinforcements, however the recent changes to Matched Play rules might help this. We also have a bit of an issue with the power level of common Heresy weapons being so high whoever gets first turn to do a crippling amount of damage (an 8ed problem overall, but something that might be worse with Heresy superheavies everywhere!).

With these in mind, I had a few general suggestions for the Heresy Ruleset, and how we might solve issues with some of the more difficult Legions like Raven Guard and Alpha Legion without just giving them tons more buffs.

- Adopt the new (beta) Matched Play rules: Specifially, that Reinforcements arriving in the first turn must land in your deployment zone.
- Relax resrictions on reinforcements: If we recommend the above, then you only get to do effective deep striking if you wait for a turn. So, can we then return some of the AL/SoH to full effectiveness, allowing (generally) more outflanking. This would also allow people to keep certain units off the board in turn 1, protecting them from overwhelming firepower.
- Include the Reserves rules as standard in most HH Scenarios: There is already a reserves ruleset in the 40k rules, it’s just not used in many scenarios. We could write this into most of the HH scenarios. Again, it allows people to make sure they at least get ONE turn of shooting from their cool toys, though it delays them like old-fashioned Reserves did. Obviously, this is also controlled by the 50% limit on reinforcements. This would also allow a number of the reserve manipulation rules to be brought back?
- Decrease Drop Pod points: Just for general Legion Drop Pods. Not a problem in most games, but it does make Orbital Assault and similar Rites more playable. At the moment, the prohibitive cost makes it hard to build an army with enough units.
- Generally, recommend using the Cities of Death cover rules on p260: This would increase the effectiveness of cover generally, which could help with infantry surviveablility. We could write a rule like “Super-fethed Heresy Battlefields” to do this (we could also expand it to work in the first turn, assuming models who start in cover are 'dug in' until they move). This might also help out some of the infantry-led armies that rely on cover (like RG).

What do people think? Most of this is just optional rules that already exist in 8ed, which we could just make 'standard' in Heresy games (like they're already standard with certain scenarios).

---------------------

OKAY, we're also going through all the Legions and people's big change suggestions from the top. Here goes.... DARK ANGELS!!!

 Formosa wrote:
Mastery of the Blade needs changing to
"Any Power sword, Terranic greatsword, Calabanite warblade, combat Knife, Relic Blade (that is a Sword) and Chainsword"

Covenant of Death Needs removing as it was a balance factor added to remedy the DA greater use of powerful weapons, which in 8th they no longer have.

Someone else wrote:their Trait means they hit other marines easier than hitting Gretchin!!

Agreed on Mastery of the Blade list of weapons. Not sure how to avoid the fact that it only comes into play against Marines - that's exactly what it did in 7ed too. WE could change it to work against anyone with a equal-to or worse WS but that's quite a huge buff. If we did this, it could be reduced to re-roll 1s, but then that seems a bit weak for a Legion trait.

Regarding Covenant of Death, not sure I like the idea of DA being the only ones with absolutely no downside - and +1VP is down from the +D3 it is in 7ed.

Formosa wrote:Dark Angels models have access to the following wargear:
1: Any model with access to the Melee Weapons list may choose a Calibanite warblade as their choice from the list.
2: Any Character with access to the Melee Weapons list may choose a Terranic greatsword as their choice from the list.
3: Any Astartes unit with access to Plasma guns may replace these with Plasma repeaters. If this is chosen, all such weapons in the unit must
be replaced.
4: Any Astartes unit with access to Grenade launchers may take Stasis grenades as an additional choice when firing the weapon. If this is
chosen, all such weapons in the unit must be upgraded.
5: Any Astartes unit with access to Missile launchers may take Stasis missiles as an additional choice when firing the weapon. If this is
chosen, all such weapons in the unit must be upgraded.
6: Any Astartes or Dreadnought unit with access to Heavy bolters or Twin heavy bolters may take Molecular acid shells as an additional
choice when firing the weapon. If this is chosen, all such weapons in the unit must be upgraded.

1: Change to "may replace any power sword with a Calabanite warblade for no extra cost" Calabanite Warblade: Str +1 Ap-3 Dam1: 4pts
2: Change to "any Character may replace their close combat weapon with a Terranic greatsword" Terranic Greatsword: Str +2 Ap -3 Dam D6: 20pts, the D6 wounds is to replicate the Instant death, Ap -3 is because its a power sword variant.

3: yep
4: Add "for no extra cost" Stasis Grenade launcher and Stasis missile launcher gives access to the Stasis grenade Strategem.
5: Add "for no extra cost" Stasis Grenade launcher and Stasis missile launcher gives access to the Stasis grenade Strategem.
6: Change to "Any unit with the legiones astartes "Dark Angels" keyword and armed with a Heavy bolter or Twin heavy bolter, may upgrade to Molecular acid round for 5pts per model for "infantry" and 15pts per model for "vehicles" with the "dreadnought" keyword.
Molecular acid round: Str- AP D6 heavy 3 Dam 1.
This weapon wounds on a 2+, unless it is targeting Vehicles, in which case it wounds on a 6+.
Twin Heavy Bolter with molecular acid round, heavy 6 otherwise the same.
Changed the Ap to D6 to replicate the 50/50 chance that it ignores all armour in the game.

OKAY, so
1. A Calibanite warblade is a power sword with +1S, so it should definitely cost a bit more. We have it in as 6pts vs the regular 4pt power sword.

2. A Terranic Greatsword, in 7ed, is a Paragon Blade with +1S but -1AP. An 8ed Paragon Blade is +2, -3, D3, 21pts. D3 wounds is the standard 8ed replacement for the Instant Death rule. Hence, a Terranic Greatsword should probably be +3, -2, D3 for the same points as a Paragon Blade?

4/5. Very clever. Makes them a bit too situational to use with Heavy Support squads, but gives a useful benefit to Veteran Sniper squads and Bikers, which probably works better as they’re specialist weapons. Great idea.

6. So, we went with D3 AP because armour is generally not something thats completely ignored that often in 8ed, and because the 50/50 thing doesn't really work in 8ed. In 7ed, you had a 50% chance of completely ignoring armour and a 50% chance of armour being normal (against Astartes). With a D6 roll for AP in 8ed, even if you don't get roll high enough to 'ignore', you're still massively affecting their armour save in any case, so it actually becomes a lot more effective (and this is a weapon that's already pretty effective!!). I mean, we could probably math it out to a D6-2 or something but is that more confusing than just doing D3?

Also, regarding the costing, is there any reason why they should be different points for Dreadnoughts now? We'd already included a cost for 'heavy boaters (acid rounds)' etc, and because weapons are priced separately, this sorta makes sense. In 7ed, because heavy boaters were included in the base cost of things like Jetbikes and Heavy Support squads this wasn't possible.

formosa wrote:
Plasma Reapeater: Str6 AP -2 Rapid fire 1 Dam 1 range 18"
Overcharge: Str7 AP-3 Rapid fire 2 Dam 2 Range 18" "gets Hot"
Slightly increased the range and reliability of the repeater as for the cost, it sucks, removed assault as it was a salvo weapon before not an assault weapon, now for 23pts per model you get a more reliable weapon.

That all makes sense to me. Will include.

formosa wrote:
Ironwing:
Add The Ironwing keyword to all units in the army.
Interlocking fire: Change to "when each vehicle that is bought as part of a sqaudron fires at the same target, they have +1 to hit"
Exterminators: When a friendly "Dark Angels" unit targets an enemy Unit within 12", it add +1 to wound as long as it is using Rapid Fire, Assault or pistol weapons, including grenades, this has no effect on weapons with a fixed to wound roll (such as poison weapons)
Goliaths of War: When a Dark Angels "Dreadnought" with the "Ironwing" keyword targets an enemy vehicle it can Re rolls any failed wound rolls of 1

Re rolling wounds is simply too powerful, I have more to come.

Again, that all makes sense to me too.

formosa wrote:
Ravenwing Protocals:

Knight commander:Add: May re roll to wound against models with a Toughness value of 5 or more and that do no have the "vehicle" keyword.
Search and Destroy: Bikes and models with the Fly keyword may fall back and shoot, In addition they gain the flanking Manoeuvres ability when they move off the of any table edge.

Flanking Manoeuvres: During deployment, you can set up this unit moving around the flanks instead of placing it on the
battlefield. At the end of any of your Movement phases the unit can join the battle - set it up so that all models in the unit are within 7” of a battlefield edge of your choice and more than 9” from enemy models, this rule may be used by any Bike or models with the fly rule that moved off the table in the previous turn.

Hunt them Down: Models in this army with the Bike or Fly keyword may move and fire heavy weapons without the -1 to hit penalty.

Scour the Land: Characters in this detachment can take rad grenades.

Ok, so that's a pretty massive buff to Ravenwing. I'm not sure it was bad to start with and, while Knight Commander now only works on vehicles, you've also given everyone the ability to fall back and shoot AND ignore the penalty to moving and firing with heavy weapons, neither of which they had in 7ed. Is there something I'm missing that made this Rite really bad or something? I thought the idea was that you get a few small buffs and the ability to move bikes around the flanks during the game, at the cost of restrictive list-building. Basically, a slightly better version of the Sky Hunter rite?

Someone Else wrote:DA - Should Calibanite Hunter (+1A and +1S when your warlord kills a character, monster etc) have a cap? Or can I theoretically buff my boy to over S10 10A?

Fair point. Any ideas what the cap should be? +3?

Agreed on Mastery of the Blade list of weapons. Not sure how to avoid the fact that it only comes into play against Marines - that's exactly what it did in 7ed too. WE could change it to work against anyone with a equal-to or worse WS but that's quite a huge buff. If we did this, it could be reduced to re-roll 1s, but then that seems a bit weak for a Legion trait.

Regarding Covenant of Death, not sure I like the idea of DA being the only ones with absolutely no downside - and +1VP is down from the +D3 it is in 7ed.

It seems weak sure, but since most of the time you will be fighting WS4 (because thats the majority WS in 40k), its ok for me.

Reg: covenent of death, well at the moment NO other army in 8th gets a downside like this, no other legion either, given how most of the DA weapons are par for the run in 40k 8th it seems like a legacy rule that is no longer needed, but im not attached to having it in or out really, its just my take on it.

OKAY, so
1. A Calibanite warblade is a power sword with +1S, so it should definitely cost a bit more. We have it in as 6pts vs the regular 4pt power sword.

2. A Terranic Greatsword, in 7ed, is a Paragon Blade with +1S but -1AP. An 8ed Paragon Blade is +2, -3, D3, 21pts. D3 wounds is the standard 8ed replacement for the Instant Death rule. Hence, a Terranic Greatsword should probably be +3, -2, D3 for the same points as a Paragon Blade?

4/5. Very clever. Makes them a bit too situational to use with Heavy Support squads, but gives a useful benefit to Veteran Sniper squads and Bikers, which probably works better as they’re specialist weapons. Great idea.

6. So, we went with D3 AP because armour is generally not something thats completely ignored that often in 8ed, and because the 50/50 thing doesn't really work in 8ed. In 7ed, you had a 50% chance of completely ignoring armour and a 50% chance of armour being normal (against Astartes). With a D6 roll for AP in 8ed, even if you don't get roll high enough to 'ignore', you're still massively affecting their armour save in any case, so it actually becomes a lot more effective (and this is a weapon that's already pretty effective!!). I mean, we could probably math it out to a D6-2 or something but is that more confusing than just doing D3?

Also, regarding the costing, is there any reason why they should be different points for Dreadnoughts now? We'd already included a cost for 'heavy boaters (acid rounds)' etc, and because weapons are priced separately, this sorta makes sense. In 7ed, because heavy boaters were included in the base cost of things like Jetbikes and Heavy Support squads this wasn't possible.

1: Ok thats fair given how 8th has made weapons more granular when it comes to cost

2: Terranic greatsword needs to retain its ability to put real damage out on enemy characters and vehicles, we tested out a lot of different iterations of this weapon such as having it do mortal wounds rather than normal ones, without the extra damage, which was by far everyones favourite.

Str +2 Ap - Dam 1 : for every succesful roll to wound, this weapon causes a single mortal wound rather than the normal damage.

So you reliably put those wounds on the enemy, now I am not a fan of that personally but I thought I would still share it, for me it should be (after testing)

str +2 Ap -3 Dam 2 : for every 6+ to wound this weapon causes a single mortal wound in addtion to any normal damage.

4/5 Cheers

6: Yeah I can see what your saying, however thats its thing, it was designed to have the ability to totally negate saves, but this is 8th so perhaps you are right, I would prefer the D6 and playtesting shows its not too bad, until you roll that rare 6, in which case people cry, also given the abundance of Invun in 8th, its even less of an issue.

I made them different points for Dreads as all dreads that can take HB now have had their shots doubled, they have also become more durable, so in my mind the cost of the Dread version should be slightly more (we decided on 8pts in the end), also given that dreads now have legion tactics it does change things slightly in other areas too.

Ok, so that's a pretty massive buff to Ravenwing. I'm not sure it was bad to start with and, while Knight Commander now only works on vehicles, you've also given everyone the ability to fall back and shoot AND ignore the penalty to moving and firing with heavy weapons, neither of which they had in 7ed. Is there something I'm missing that made this Rite really bad or something? I thought the idea was that you get a few small buffs and the ability to move bikes around the flanks during the game, at the cost of restrictive list-building. Basically, a slightly better version of the Sky Hunter rite?

Ah this has changed slightly with our playtesting.


Ravenwing Protocals:

Knight commander:Add: May re roll to wound against models with a Toughness value of 5 or more and do not have the "vehicle" keyword.

Search and Destroy: At the end of any combat any bike or jetbike unit may break off from combat, they pick a direction and move up to 3d6 in that direction, this may not be used to take them into base contact with another unit.
In addtion they gain access to the Flanking manoevres ability.

Flanking Manoeuvres: During deployment, you can set up this unit moving around the flanks instead of placing it on the
battlefield. At the end of any of your Movement phases the unit can join the battle - set it up so that all models in the unit are within 7” of a battlefield edge of your choice and more than 9” from enemy models, this rule may be used by any Bike or models with the fly rule that moved off the table in the previous turn.

Hunt them Down: any Jetbike model may move and fire heavy weapons without the -1 to hit penalty.

Scour the Land: Characters in this detachment can take rad grenades.

So this changed for a couple of reasons, firstly we accidently buffed Dark Angel flyers, secondly all of the firepower from a Ravenwing army comes from its jetbikes and flyers, short of lowering the cost of jetbikes for ravenwing, the -1 to hit is simply too costly for this force to work with, cutting down on firepower but not cost of firepower, therefore we decided they needed a buff to their heavy weapon units specifically.

Search and destroy was always intended to be "hit and run" a signature ability of the ravenwing, however it allowed standard bikes too much flexibility to shoot after breaking off, so we changed it to be a large reposition ability but at the cost of shooting, unless you are a jetbike, which is the same as now.

Reply by: AnomanderRake - click to view full reply 

47138

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2018/06/01 17:27:11

Post by: AnomanderRake

 ArbitorIan wrote:
...We also have a bit of an issue with the power level of common Heresy weapons being so high whoever gets first turn to do a crippling amount of damage (an 8ed problem overall, but something that might be worse with Heresy superheavies everywhere!)...

I notice scanning your rules here that some of the major controls on shooting alpha-strikes in 7e 30k seem to be absent; notably: in 7e a blast can only get one wound on a vehicle unless you successfully fish for an explosion whereas when a "blast" is 2d6 S10 shots you're virtually guaranteed to remove lighter vehicles and bracket Land Raiders/superheavies, cover as a bonus to baseline saves rather than a separate save lets high-AP weapons punch straight through it and remove units they might have had a problem with in 7e, and flare shields/Invulnerable saves seem to be absent from vehicles here.

I wonder if you've considered reworking more large blast weapons to function more like the Dreadnaught Conversion Beamer wherein they put out a small number of powerful/high-damage shots and do a larger number of less powerful hits if that one powerful shot successfully kills a model? That approach might start to reduce the problem of powerful multi-shot guns being too efficient against all possible targets and possibly reduce the impact of the first-turn alpha-strike. I'm aware of the departure from your normal methods but I do think the first-turn alpha-strike problem is more of an issue with how the stats (both weapon and unit) are written in 8e than with how the core rules work.

Reply by: Peregrine - click to view full reply 

63000

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2018/06/02 12:01:14

Post by: Peregrine

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I wonder if you've considered reworking more large blast weapons to function more like the Dreadnaught Conversion Beamer wherein they put out a small number of powerful/high-damage shots and do a larger number of less powerful hits if that one powerful shot successfully kills a model?

That doesn't make any sense. Why does an explosion limit itself to killing a single member of a squad unless that one soldier is killed by it? It works for conversion beamers because it's representing a beam that hits a single target and explodes it with enough force to damage things nearby, it wouldn't make any sense for a Baneblade shell that is just a weapon with a huge blast radius.

The better solution to blast weapons is to make them hit automatically, up to a number of hits equal to the number of models in the target unit, and balance point costs and shot numbers appropriately. A large blast weapon would become a Heavy 1 weapon with the Blast D6 rule, a rapid-fire plasma cannon would be Heavy 3 with the Blast D3 rule (with each D3 being checked separately vs. model count), etc. This makes blast weapons a good tool for dealing with high model count units and guaranteeing a single hit against bigger targets, but removes the ability to stack up multiple hits against a single-model unit. And for a bonus fix you can make aircraft immune to anything with the Blast rule, so flamers are no longer the best AA weapons.

Reply by: ArbitorIan - click to view full reply 

8049

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2018/06/03 15:50:32

Post by: ArbitorIan

 Formosa wrote:
Reg: covenent of death, well at the moment NO other army in 8th gets a downside like this, no other legion either, given how most of the DA weapons are par for the run in 40k 8th it seems like a legacy rule that is no longer needed, but im not attached to having it in or out really, its just my take on it.

I mean, I don't think 1VP is a huge difference, but we could always either modify the rule (so it's only if the enemy have MORE rather than just 'equal to or more') or we could add a small buff to compensate, ,maybe stolen from 40k. Nor sure...

str +2 Ap -3 Dam 2 : for every 6+ to wound this weapon causes a single mortal wound in addtion to any normal damage.

I could see that working too - the great sword is basically a Paragon Blade that swaps the potential for 3 Damage for the possibility of causing the odd mortal wound?

Ravenwing Protocals:

Knight commander:Add: May re roll to wound against models with a Toughness value of 5 or more and do not have the "vehicle" keyword.

Search and Destroy: At the end of any combat any bike or jetbike unit may break off from combat, they pick a direction and move up to 3d6 in that direction, this may not be used to take them into base contact with another unit.
In addtion they gain access to the Flanking manoevres ability.

Flanking Manoeuvres: During deployment, you can set up this unit moving around the flanks instead of placing it on the
battlefield. At the end of any of your Movement phases the unit can join the battle - set it up so that all models in the unit are within 7” of a battlefield edge of your choice and more than 9” from enemy models, this rule may be used by any Bike or models with the fly rule that moved off the table in the previous turn.

Hunt them Down: any Jetbike model may move and fire heavy weapons without the -1 to hit penalty.

Scour the Land: Characters in this detachment can take rad grenades.

So this changed for a couple of reasons, firstly we accidently buffed Dark Angel flyers, secondly all of the firepower from a Ravenwing army comes from its jetbikes and flyers, short of lowering the cost of jetbikes for ravenwing, the -1 to hit is simply too costly for this force to work with, cutting down on firepower but not cost of firepower, therefore we decided they needed a buff to their heavy weapon units specifically.

Search and destroy was always intended to be "hit and run" a signature ability of the ravenwing, however it allowed standard bikes too much flexibility to shoot after breaking off, so we changed it to be a large reposition ability but at the cost of shooting, unless you are a jetbike, which is the same as now.

So - just to check, in your current RoW you've removed the bit that lets them leave the battlefield?

I guess my big issue here is Hit & Run. In 30k 7ed, Ravenwing could easily have been given the Hit & Run USR, but FW didn't do it. So, Ravenwing don't hit and run in the Heresy (intentionally).

I think this is generally a good thing, because it differentiates them from something like Chogorian Brotherhood, which does Hit & Run, but can't leave the battlefield and re-appear. So you have the WS Bike army, who are like a fast-moving close-combat army that can keep charging forward, and the Ravenwing, who pop up, shoot, disappear into the shadows, appear on the other side of the battlefield, etc. WS use their speed to smash into combat quicker. Ravenwing use their speed to confuse/misdirect the enemy.

Also, in 40k 8ed, Ravenwing don't have any similar ability either (though they do Jink, which is interesting). I'm not sure about sticking in a really powerful extra ability like this when neither of the base rule sets have chosen to give them anything like it.

Reply by: Formosa - click to view full reply 

34439

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2018/06/03 22:27:12

Post by: Formosa

We kept the move off the battlefield but allowed standard bikes to be able to break off up to 3d6 rather than the standard break off, jetbikes also get this ability but can still shoot, so the biggest change here is just allowing standard bikes and jetbikes a possible larger break off, as it stands now all bikes can break off 12-14” depending on bike type, potentially allowing an extra 4-6” extra (very unlikely) isn’t game breaking and on average it’s slightly less than the current close combat break off any unit can do for free.

As jetbikes have fly they can already break off and shoot so that part of the rule we changed as it was redundant and we unintentionally allowed flyers to do the same and shoot heavy weapons with no penalty, hence the change to just jetbikes gaining a buff with heavy weapons.

Reply by: ArbitorIan - click to view full reply 

8049

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2018/06/03 23:06:54

Post by: ArbitorIan

 Formosa wrote:
We kept the move off the battlefield but allowed standard bikes to be able to break off up to 3d6 rather than the standard break off, jetbikes also get this ability but can still shoot, so the biggest change here is just allowing standard bikes and jetbikes a possible larger break off, as it stands now all bikes can break off 12-14” depending on bike type, potentially allowing an extra 4-6” extra (very unlikely) isn’t game breaking and on average it’s slightly less than the current close combat break off any unit can do for free.

As jetbikes have fly they can already break off and shoot so that part of the rule we changed as it was redundant and we unintentionally allowed flyers to do the same and shoot heavy weapons with no penalty, hence the change to just jetbikes gaining a buff with heavy weapons.

I get all that, but I still don't get why we're giving them any sort of Hit & Run-like buff at all, given that it isn't a thing Ravenwing do in any version of the game we're basing this on.

In 7ed Heresy, Ravenwing Protocols gives you:
- Better Monster-hunting characters
- The ability to move your bikes off the board and back on again from outflank.
- Better Sweeping Advance rolls
- Rad grenades

And, as a drawback, you basically have to build an army of bikes and flyers (and can't get buffs from non-DA characters, which is a standard now).

So, in approaching this, those are the buffs and drawbacks we're trying to replicate (not re-write the whole thing to do something else). None of those include anything like 7ed Hit&Run. I think, at the moment, we've pretty much replicated that and I THINK it's still a good choice as a Rite (I might be wrong!). Of course, everyone can disengage from combat now, and jet bikes even get to shoot after, but that's a core part of the 8ed rules, and I don't see anything in the list above that suggests Ravenwing Protocols should make them any better at it.

If the Rite was really bad, or totally didn't work at all in 8ed, then giving them something like Jink would be more in-keeping with the system, as that's something they legitimately do in 8ed, or the simple balancing factor we've been using throughout - to give it, say, full CPs instead of Outriders CPs to represent that it's a 'standard' tactic for DA.

Reply by: Formosa - click to view full reply 

34439

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2018/06/03 23:26:09

Post by: Formosa

 ArbitorIan wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
We kept the move off the battlefield but allowed standard bikes to be able to break off up to 3d6 rather than the standard break off, jetbikes also get this ability but can still shoot, so the biggest change here is just allowing standard bikes and jetbikes a possible larger break off, as it stands now all bikes can break off 12-14” depending on bike type, potentially allowing an extra 4-6” extra (very unlikely) isn’t game breaking and on average it’s slightly less than the current close combat break off any unit can do for free.

As jetbikes have fly they can already break off and shoot so that part of the rule we changed as it was redundant and we unintentionally allowed flyers to do the same and shoot heavy weapons with no penalty, hence the change to just jetbikes gaining a buff with heavy weapons.

I get all that, but I still don't get why we're giving them any sort of Hit & Run-like buff at all, given that it isn't a thing Ravenwing do in any version of the game we're basing this on.

In 7ed Heresy, Ravenwing Protocols gives you:
- Better Monster-hunting characters
- The ability to move your bikes off the board and back on again from outflank.
- Better Sweeping Advance rolls
- Rad grenades

And, as a drawback, you basically have to build an army of bikes and flyers (and can't get buffs from non-DA characters, which is a standard now).

So, in approaching this, those are the buffs and drawbacks we're trying to replicate (not re-write the whole thing to do something else). None of those include anything like 7ed Hit&Run. I think, at the moment, we've pretty much replicated that and I THINK it's still a good choice as a Rite (I might be wrong!). Of course, everyone can disengage from combat now, and jet bikes even get to shoot after, but that's a core part of the 8ed rules, and I don't see anything in the list above that suggests Ravenwing Protocols should make them any better at it.

If the Rite was really bad, or totally didn't work at all in 8ed, then giving them something like Jink would be more in-keeping with the system, as that's something they legitimately do in 8ed, or the simple balancing factor we've been using throughout - to give it, say, full CPs instead of Outriders CPs to represent that it's a 'standard' tactic for DA.

Perhaps its just were seeing it from different perspectives, to me its a side shift, a risk/reward since I could get a larger break off, but more likely a lesser break off, its not bother though as these are all just sugestions.

Reg Hit and Run for RW HH, I personally think that was a big mistake from FW not to give RW one of their signature abilities in 7th HH, but now 8th is here and everyone has it, well... I can see what your saying and its a redundant rule that is not really needed.

I like your Idea to give the protocols full CPS, it is honestly something GW should have already done for a few specific forces like DW and RW, both forces suffer for lack of CP and it stops you being able to play "pure" forces.

Reply by: geordie09 - click to view full reply 

18594

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2018/06/13 10:43:05

Post by: geordie09

Interesting stuff here. Looking forward to see how it rolls forward.

Reply by: Warp Angels - click to view full reply 

65177

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2018/06/25 10:12:55

Post by: Warp Angels

Love the rules you guys have made, but where is the legion relics list ? just curious because i couldn't find it :L

Reply by: Callous_Typhon - click to view full reply 

112379

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2018/07/14 09:45:27

Post by: Callous_Typhon

 Warp Angels wrote:
Love the rules you guys have made, but where is the legion relics list ? just curious because i couldn't find it :L

This page has a list (albeit, not a precisely detailed one) of LA, Mech, and SA relics
https://apocalypse40k.blogspot.com/2014/11/conquest-legion-relic-rules.html

Reply by: RedFox - click to view full reply 

84869

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2018/07/14 17:25:41

Post by: RedFox

why aren't the boarding shield just a 6+ inv that chnage into 5+ like in HH ?

Reply by: ArbitorIan - click to view full reply 

8049

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2018/07/15 09:03:26

Post by: ArbitorIan

Warp Angels wrote:Love the rules you guys have made, but where is the legion relics list ? just curious because i couldn't find it :L

Coming in the next update - we've updated the rules from the HH standard ones and added in some Legion-specific ones.

RedFox wrote:why aren't the boarding shield just a 6+ inv that chnage into 5+ like in HH ?

Because Void Hardened Armour (which is what a lot of Boarding Shield-armed units already have) gives a 5+ inv as per the 8ed rules. Since boarding shield rules don't exist in 8ed yet, and there would be no point duplicating the invulnerable save mechanic. we used the mechanic from All Is Dust from the 40k TS rules. Both together actually make breachers quite survivable now - as tough as Terminators against small arms, but without the extra wound or protection against heavier weapons.

Reply by: Glumy - click to view full reply 

42957

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2018/07/16 09:31:59

Post by: Glumy

 ArbitorIan wrote:

Because Void Hardened Armour (which is what a lot of Boarding Shield-armed units already have) gives a 5+ inv as per the 8ed rules.

Its such a poor rules writing by FW.

Reply by: agurus1 - click to view full reply 

53831

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2018/07/16 17:24:05

Post by: agurus1

Glumy wrote:

 ArbitorIan wrote:

Because Void Hardened Armour (which is what a lot of Boarding Shield-armed units already have) gives a 5+ inv as per the 8ed rules.

Its such a poor rules writing by FW.

? Void Hardened Armor confers reroll Armor saves vs blasts and templates. Not sure how you would convert that to 8th.

Reply by: IndominusSSD - click to view full reply 

120598

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2018/07/28 15:58:14

Post by: IndominusSSD

What should Vexillas do?

Reply by: AnomanderRake - click to view full reply 

47138

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2018/07/28 17:42:23

Post by: AnomanderRake

agurus1 wrote:

Glumy wrote:

 ArbitorIan wrote:

Because Void Hardened Armour (which is what a lot of Boarding Shield-armed units already have) gives a 5+ inv as per the 8ed rules.

Its such a poor rules writing by FW.

? Void Hardened Armor confers reroll Armor saves vs blasts and templates. Not sure how you would convert that to 8th.

Thematically it gives greater resilience against high-volume/low-damage weapons, which you could do as +1 to saves v. low-S/low-D weapons the way Thousand Sons and some of the Krieg vehicles have.

Reply by: Callous_Typhon - click to view full reply 

112379

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2018/08/28 10:18:01

Post by: Callous_Typhon

Aside from just The Fluff there aren't any rules that encourage the 14th Legion Death Guard to take melta weapons.

"7-3 Ratio"
For every 7 or more Flamer / Melta weapons, and 3 or less Plasma,Volkite,Grav,Conversion, etc. (mechanicum esq weapons) Then Heavy weapons squads with Heavy Flamers and/or MultiMeltas can be rearranged as "Support" squads.

Same way Tac Support Squads are used.

That's all. G'night.

Reply by: sempthegreat - click to view full reply 

58406

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2018/09/06 08:27:44

Post by: sempthegreat

IndominusSSD wrote:
What should Vexillas do?

+

Reply by: primalexile - click to view full reply 

46896

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2018/09/24 21:21:14

Post by: primalexile

Just curious if this project is still alive, is there an eta on the summer update? I only ask because I was about to have it all printed off and put in spiraling.

I went back to playing HH rule set, and cannot stand the way vehicles are done. My group and I are looking at using this rule set instead.

Reply by: ArbitorIan - click to view full reply 

8049

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2018/09/24 23:04:40

Post by: ArbitorIan

 primalexile wrote:
Just curious if this project is still alive, is there an eta on the summer update? I only ask because I was about to have it all printed off and put in spiraling.

I went back to playing HH rule set, and cannot stand the way vehicles are done. My group and I are looking at using this rule set instead.

Hiya. Nope, still going with the summer update. It’s dragged on a bit as we had a few big legion things to get second opinions on, plus the 7ed HH rulebook to consider, and now the imminent release of Chapter Approved 2018, which looks to have some big game-wide changes that we should probably incorporate!

So, yeah, never ending battle to update but it’s still happening. Everything from this thread is currently on the ‘big list of changes’.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And just because everyone is asking (sorry - formatting issue, totally fixed for the next version) LEGION VEXILLAS ADD 1 TO LD

Reply by: primalexile - click to view full reply 

46896

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2018/09/25 22:47:20

Post by: primalexile

@Arbitorlan, thank you for all your hard work!

Reply by: ArbitorIan - click to view full reply 

8049

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2018/09/28 13:39:29

Post by: ArbitorIan

Ok, we have a v3.0 out of the door. Incremented to 3.0 because I've done quite a lot or work with the layouts so that it feels a lot more like an 8ed product (reference at the back, etc). We've also included some updated ideas about how to play (including certain advanced and Beta rules as part of the 'core' set). There's also big changes to Thousand Sons, how Legion Traits and Detachments work (and how this affects Primarchs) and smaller, but significant, ones to Alpha Legion, Raven Guard and Dark Angels.

We're planning a v3.1 relatively soon, once Chapter Approved 2018 is released, as it looks like this might have some updates to the 'general' rules system.

Legiones Astartes Army List v3.0

Reformatted layout to be more similar to a 40k Codex. All reference data at the back of the book.

Included ‘Playing Games in the AoD’ box, with suggested ‘Advanced’ rules to be used.

Re-defined Shattered Legions and Objective Secured as detachment rules as per current codexes.

Re-defined Legion Traits as an additional ability, and wrote this ability into all units that get them.

Gave Objective Secured as standard to all non-HQ TERMINATOR units.

Added Legion Relics

Reformatted Rites of War, adjusted command points in line with new 40k rules and added ZM Assault Force

Added Termite Assault Drill

Fixed points cost for Twin Autocannon (30)

Increased the CP benefit for taking Fury of the Ancients

Amended Pride of the Legion to allow Legion-specific Terminator squads.

Added heavy flamers to the Sponson Weapons list

General inferno pistol tidy-up - these are now in the main Legiones Astartes list and cost 9 points.

Corrected Forge Lord to be able to take Rad Grenades & Cyber-familiar

Split Legion Command Squad and Legion Terminator Command Squad into two entries and corrected Terminator Command Squad options.

Added the missing Objective Secured to Veteran Squads

Updated rules for Charnabal Sabres to reflect old Rending

Added Inferno Pistol!

Added the current 40k Lieutenant Ability to Legion Centurions. Clarified how Centurions are upgraded to Consuls (and the loss of that ablity). Re-pointed Legion Centurions and all Consul upgrades to reflect this.

Reduced the points cost of Praetors and Centurions in Terminator Armour (and variants) to account for the loss of Teleport Assault compared to 40k.

Added and adjusted all Volkite weapons in line with new Carnodon 8ed rules (Pistols and Assault weapons are just D2, Heavy weapons are AP-1, D2, special volkite rule). Adjusted points costs.

Changed Fury of the Legion Stratagem to only work with Tactical Squads.

Reduced the points cost of a Legion Drop Pod to 55pts

Changed Legion Seekers (and Vigilators) to use a version of the Special Issue Ammunition rules from the Deathwatch Codex rather than having Special Issue Boltguns. Amended points costs.

Adjusted points costs for Cameleoline (including different cost for Characters)

Decreased points cost for hardened armour and made clear in all cases that it’s a paid-for wargear item.

Removed Iron Halo as a wargear item to make clear that it’s an inherent thing Praetors get.

Removed Narthecium as a wargear item to make clear that it’s an inherent thing Apothecaries/PMs get.



Legions v3.0

Reformatted all Legion rules pages, including Rites of War

Added Legion Traits ability to all specialist Legion models EXCEPT for Primarchs (as Primarchs getting Legion Traits was causing contradictions with their own abilities). Where neccessary, Primarchs have been given the relevant Abilities in their profile.

Added Legion-specific Relics

Moved inferno pistols to the main LA list.

IV - Changes Iron Circle to protect any IW Master of the Legion

VI - Clarified Bodyguard and Really Furry interaction for Freki and Geri, and added Transport rules

VI - Clarified the great frost blade rules so that they’re the same between Varangyr and Characters

VI - Updated the Varagyr Thegn to 3W, and adjusted point costs to match (34)

VI - Adjusted the Varagyr rules so that only the Thegn has access to the great frost blade.

VI - Re-wrote the Wolves of Fenris rules to try and get a middle ground between the two current interpretations of the rule. This version restricts some Rites, but not as many as 7ed does/doesn’t!

IX - Added a comedy JAMMING rule for the Iliastus at the request of the forum. Adjusted points values.

IX - Changed the Ability on Blade of Perdition to be more similar to 7ed effects

X - Gave Iron-Father the option for a cortex controller.

X - Modified Ferrus’ plasma blaster to not kill him!

XII - Updated Berserker Assault CP loss

XIII - Modified Fulmentarus PR to change when when twin missile launchers are added.

XV - Lots of changed suggested by the thread.

XV - Corrected Ahriman’s pistol to D2. Corrected Ahriman’s Warlord Trait to not stack with similar traits.

XV - Changed Prosperine Lore to be clearer and closer to 7ed.

XV - Changed Cult Arcana to exempt Compulsort HQs from being from the same Cult as the Warlord.

XV - Changed Signs and Portents to clarify stacking AND include the previous drawback from losing Characters.

XV - Added back in Arcane Litanies! Woo!

XV - Made Aether-fire Cannon 36” (might be too good/cheap now)

XV - Clarified ALL Psyker rules. Character-level psykers now have access to Librarius powers too (as per 40k TS) whereas squads only have their own Cult. All Psykers have access to smite.

XV - Added back in the Psy-locus and exploding rules for Castellax-Achea

XV - Changed Osirion back to ML1, adjusted points costs and clarified about two force blades.

XV - Clarified how Khenetai work with force blades and adjusted costs.

XV - Allowed Ahriman to cast three powers.

XV - Amended Amon’s abilities to only stop enemy reinforcements and Armour of Shades to an aura.

XV - Changes to Magnus the Red (and points), in line with various suggestions in the thread.

XV - Magnus knows all the Cult powers and Smite. That should help with flexibility!!

XV - Magnus has the Gaze of Magnus rule from 40k (D6 Smite, 2D6 on 11+) - roughly analogous to Minds Wrath

XV - Magnus - Changed his Lord of War rule to the usual -1 to Damage, and then removed the ‘halving’ rule from the Horned Raiment - instead, it now has the ‘ignore mortal wounds from perils’ rule from 40k. That should ALSO help with his issue with getting perilled more!

XVI - Added the option for Justaerin to take twin lightning claws

XVII - Re-worded the Charismatic Leadership rule to make it function better.

XVII - Decreased points cost for Ashen Circle and made clear that hardened armour is paid wargear

XVIII - Corrected the Pyrocast Flamer to D6 shots

XIX - Gave any Infantry units the option to take Cameleoline and adjusted points costs accordingly

XX - Added the option in Coils of the Hydra to use units that can take Advance Deployment (i.e Mutable Tactics) or Concealed Positions to make this RoW easier to actually take!

XX - Mutable Tactics - Slightly increased effectiveness of combat stimulants by giving them the same ability when charging

BLACKSHIELDS - Removed the reference to Initiative



Crusade Imperialis v2.0

Reformatted layout to be more similar to a 40k Codex. All reference data at the back of the book.

Objective Secured now a benefit for taking Battle-forged armies.

Included ‘Playing Games in the AoD’ box, with suggested ‘Advanced’ rules to be used.

Added Militia and Solar Auxilia Relics

Added Termite Assault Drill

Added Aurox and Saturnyne Aurox

Reduced cost of SA Lasrifle Sections, Militia Infantry, and Militia Grenadiers in-line with 40k AM costs.

Added the Carnodon and Saturyne Carnodon.

Added and adjusted all Volkite weapons in line with new Carnodon 8ed rules (Pistols and Assault weapons are just D2, Heavy weapons are AP-1, D2, special volkite rule). Adjusted points costs.

Included PR for Dracosan and additional SA command section models.

.

Reply by: Potte - click to view full reply 

121709

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2018/10/08 06:36:15

Post by: Potte

Really enjoy playing with the 8th ed. HH rules you guys have created.

In the current edition though, you have by accident (i hope) messed up Magnus the red.
Before the update he was... a bit Meh.
but now he is downright broken.

With 3D6 to manifest, and 10+ on Smite gives 2D6 mortal wounds, Magnus will on average give 7 Mortal wounds every time he throws Smite.
Thats not even accounting for things like "command points reroll", to further boost those 2D6 mortal wounds.

Magnus can basicly snap his fingers and kill pretty much anything in the game, even another primach, but at a distance.
in a game such as 30k where there really arent that many psychers running around, Magnus will be completly unstopable.

And he is still a Primach, so he wont go down easy himself.
I really suggest you guys look into this.

We are using the 8ed HH rules in a tournament, coming up in a couple of weeks.
And we actually had to houserule Magnus not manifesting Smite on 2D6, to avoid things escalation.


Best wishes.
Kasper

Reply by: ArbitorIan - click to view full reply 

8049

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2018/10/08 10:09:18

Post by: ArbitorIan

 Potte wrote:
Really enjoy playing with the 8th ed. HH rules you guys have created.

In the current edition though, you have by accident (i hope) messed up Magnus the red.
Before the update he was... a bit Meh.
but now he is downright broken.

With 3D6 to manifest, and 10+ on Smite gives 2D6 mortal wounds, Magnus will on average give 7 Mortal wounds every time he throws Smite.
Thats not even accounting for things like "command points reroll", to further boost those 2D6 mortal wounds.

Magnus can basicly snap his fingers and kill pretty much anything in the game, even another primach, but at a distance.
in a game such as 30k where there really arent that many psychers running around, Magnus will be completly unstopable.

And he is still a Primach, so he wont go down easy himself.
I really suggest you guys look into this.

We are using the 8ed HH rules in a tournament, coming up in a couple of weeks.
And we actually had to houserule Magnus not manifesting Smite on 2D6, to avoid things escalation.


Best wishes.
Kasper

Yeah, this was flagged pretty quick- keeping his old bonus and adding the 40k one has made him too good now! I think the solution is to edit the Arch Sorcerer rule to read:

Arch Sorceror: Magnus the Red is a member of all of the Cults of Prospero and can thus choose psychic power from any of them, and compulsory choices in an army where he is Warlord can be from any of the Cults. Additionally he adds 1 to the total dice roll when he attempts to manifest or Deny psychic powers.

That's still a bonus, as Daemon Magnus doesn't even get the +1. Also, he has to get 11 on his psychic test to get the 2d6 wounds, which now means rolling a natural 10. This means that, on average, each turn Magnus would have a 92% chance of causing 3.5 mortal wounds on the closest enemy unit (assuming he casts Smite first), but he's only likely to get 7 mortal wounds once every other game (before re-rolls).

Reply by: Potte - click to view full reply 

121709

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2018/10/09 08:24:27

Post by: Potte

See that! is a brilliant Solution!

Reply by: snykyninja - click to view full reply 

100960

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2018/10/09 13:04:56

Post by: snykyninja

I've been following the thread for a while, but only just taken a look at the legion character rules. Specifically, Lord Commander Eidolon. In 7th, his Thunderous Charge rule allowed him to ignore the unwieldy rule on his thunder hammer when he charged. It now inflicts a MW on a 4+. Would it not make more sense to allow him to ignore the -1 to hit when he charges?

Edit:
Looking further, it has also come to my attention that Perturabo can take Forgebreaker, but does not suffer a penalty to hit. In 7th, Perturabo suffers from unwieldy when using Forgebreaker, while Ferrus Manus does not.

Reply by: ArbitorIan - click to view full reply 

8049

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2018/10/09 14:16:46

Post by: ArbitorIan

 snykyninja wrote:
I've been following the thread for a while, but only just taken a look at the legion character rules. Specifically, Lord Commander Eidolon. In 7th, his Thunderous Charge rule allowed him to ignore the unwieldy rule on his thunder hammer when he charged. It now inflicts a MW on a 4+. Would it not make more sense to allow him to ignore the -1 to hit when he charges?

Edit:
Looking further, it has also come to my attention that Perturabo can take Forgebreaker, but does not suffer a penalty to hit. In 7th, Perturabo suffers from unwieldy when using Forgebreaker, while Ferrus Manus does not.

Good points, added to the change list for next time.

Reply by: alicks - click to view full reply 

121891

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2018/10/13 17:19:58

Post by: alicks

Hi

Just looking through the Legions Astartes list and noticed that the points costs for Terminator squads might be out.

you have the tartaros squads down for 26pts per model, which is the same as your generic terminators.

while cataphractii are down at 30pts per model.

should the tartaros not be more expensive than cataphractii?

also I noticed in the terminator command squad their wargear is not correct.

thanks

Alex

Reply by: chaos45 - click to view full reply 

43331

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2018/10/29 21:48:25

Post by: chaos45

Been reading through all the updated rules looking good.

In the legion rules though it seems the mechanicum stuff is abit overpointed.

In 8th edition rules multi wound wpns knock them down much more quickly yet it seems you increased their points.

Thallax at 35 pts+ wpns- +12 points for a lightning gun seems abit high, quick equation is 1 Thallax worth 4 Marines? as thats the approx cost you put on them.

Think this issue may also be in the other ones but would have to analyze the points better to make comparisions- example the domitar probably should not have a -1 to hit with its melee wpn and should prolly get an extra attack or some type of re-rolls since its armed with 2 of them. They suck horribly in 7th edition rules as is so if you are re-writing the rules mise well fix the ones that forge world wrote horribly.

Reply by: Potte - click to view full reply 

121709

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2018/11/01 07:04:24

Post by: Potte

Regarding the XIV Legion "Death guard".
I honestly think the chem weapons arent that usefull.

The old "Gets hot rule" has recieved a pretty big rewrite, i get that (now killing the user).
but the thing that makes plasma weapons still usefull, is your ability to get rerolls to hit rolls, and thereby avoid the dreaded 1 on the dice (at least to a higher degree).
But you cant do that with flamers (Except with command points, but that is gonna become pretty expensive).
I Usually use Heavy flamers, flamer and other lovely chemical weaponry in AOD (7th edition rules) but i really dont find them usefull in 8th, simply because of the lethalety of the weapon for the user, with a 1 out of 6 chance of just out right removing the model.

Reply by: Callous_Typhon - click to view full reply 

112379

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2018/11/01 13:38:29

Post by: Callous_Typhon

 Potte wrote:
Regarding the XIV Legion "Death guard".
I honestly think the chem weapons arent that usefull.

The old "Gets hot rule" has recieved a pretty big rewrite, i get that (now killing the user).
but the thing that makes plasma weapons still usefull, is your ability to get rerolls to hit rolls, and thereby avoid the dreaded 1 on the dice (at least to a higher degree).
But you cant do that with flamers (Except with command points, but that is gonna become pretty expensive).
I Usually use Heavy flamers, flamer and other lovely chemical weaponry in AOD (7th edition rules) but i really dont find them usefull in 8th, simply because of the lethalety of the weapon for the user, with a 1 out of 6 chance of just out right removing the model.

Agreed. So how should chem-munitions be re-worded?
I wouldn't mind seeing additional ChemMunitions with a point-cost with an extra rule, while still maintaining the Gets Hot rule
1: Free CM, Shread+Gets Hot (as already written)
2: xxPts, Gives AP1 + get hot
Or even a chem profile granting Poison while -2 to the Str value

Point being, If ChemMunitions are supposed to crank up the violence with the son of Barbarus, then make them worth the risk in taking.

Reply by: Potte - click to view full reply 

121709

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2018/11/02 09:58:51

Post by: Potte

Callous_Typhon wrote:

 Potte wrote:
Regarding the XIV Legion "Death guard".
I honestly think the chem weapons arent that usefull.

The old "Gets hot rule" has recieved a pretty big rewrite, i get that (now killing the user).
but the thing that makes plasma weapons still usefull, is your ability to get rerolls to hit rolls, and thereby avoid the dreaded 1 on the dice (at least to a higher degree).
But you cant do that with flamers (Except with command points, but that is gonna become pretty expensive).
I Usually use Heavy flamers, flamer and other lovely chemical weaponry in AOD (7th edition rules) but i really dont find them usefull in 8th, simply because of the lethalety of the weapon for the user, with a 1 out of 6 chance of just out right removing the model.

Agreed. So how should chem-munitions be re-worded?
I wouldn't mind seeing additional ChemMunitions with a point-cost with an extra rule, while still maintaining the Gets Hot rule
1: Free CM, Shread+Gets Hot (as already written)
2: xxPts, Gives AP1 + get hot
Or even a chem profile granting Poison while -2 to the Str value

Point being, If ChemMunitions are supposed to crank up the violence with the son of Barbarus, then make them worth the risk in taking.

for me to buy flamers and heavy flamers with chem munitions, this is the rule that would make me get em (if we keep the 8th edition gets hot rule).

Flamers: +1 Strengt, AP:-1. Reroll wound rolls of 1s against infantry (like the plague hulk in 8th)
Heavy flamers. +1 Strengt, AP-2. Reroll wound rolls of 1s against infantry

That would in mine oppinion make em really good, and worth the risk.

Reply by: Pepper1238 - click to view full reply 

89026

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2018/11/12 15:32:43

Post by: Pepper1238

Really like what you guys have done. Haven't gone too in-depth yet so I might have missed this. Do the Primarchs still have It Will Not Die?

Reply by: Potte - click to view full reply 

121709

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2018/11/13 10:59:33

Post by: Potte

Regarding Primachs in general.

I would suggest giving them all a version of the old "It will not die".
And Primachs like Mortarion or Vulkan, should be able to reroll.

Reply by: smurfORnot - click to view full reply 

68827

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2018/11/13 14:20:23

Post by: smurfORnot

Before they were more survivable, since lascannon hit would take you just one wound, now you can basically just die from 2 missle launchers...

Reply by: chaos45 - click to view full reply 

43331

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2018/11/13 17:45:35

Post by: chaos45

Think you might want to read the current rules for Primarchs all damage is reduced by 1.

Which isnt bad....they should prolly change it to all damage is halved round up though would make them abit more durable....keep in mind they are 9 wound characters tho so you can screen them very easily, and use body guard squads to shuffle wounds off to.

Reply by: ArbitorIan - click to view full reply 

8049

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2018/11/13 17:52:17

Post by: ArbitorIan

Also, bear in mind that they’re all characters and thus can’t be targeted by a lascannon unless they’re standing right next to it!

Reply by: Sir Heckington - click to view full reply 

121978

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2018/11/23 02:09:04

Post by: Sir Heckington

Some notes, really loving this.

First thing, from me, is Iron Hands seem OP. Their negatives aren't nearly as bad as in HH 7th, I rarely run with them anyway. Something else to be a drawback would be nice (And this is as the Iron Hands player in the group.)


Warning, huge wall of text. This is from a friend who plays thousand sons, I had no input on it, and as said he has yet to play HH 8th. (But we are about to!)

Spoiler:

After looking through the Thousand Sons legion list and comparing them with a few other legions, I found them to be... underwhelming.
Now, I haven't played this game mode, but from my experiences with 8th edition Warhammer and its balancing (which I believe you are attempting to emulate), I came up with a few issues regarding the Thousand Sons unit list.
Do take this with a grain of salt, as this may be some of my internal biases speaking.

Regarding legion traits:
• Prosperine Lore: If a Thousand Sons Character is selected to be the Warlord, they must be a Psyker (or take the Psyker upgrade,
detailed below in ‘Legion Wargear’). In this case, the Warlord must be the Thousand Sons Character with the highest Leadership
characteristic in the detachment. Thousand Sons Praetors must always take the Psyker upgrade.

I understand the purpose of this rule, and it is very fluffy. However, it simply adds more restrictions and gives absolutely no benefit to the Legion as a whole.

I propose it be changed to this:
• Prosperine Lore: If a Thousand Sons Character is selected to be the Warlord, they must be a Psyker (or take the Psyker upgrade,
detailed below in ‘Legion Wargear’). In this case, the Warlord must be the Thousand Sons Character with the highest Leadership
characteristic in the detachment. Thousand Sons Praetors must always take the Psyker upgrade. All Thousand Sons Character Psykers
may take Arcane Litanies for 0 pts, and all Thousand Sons units can add 1 to their attempts to cast powers from their cult discipline.

This would reflect their mastery of the warp gained from experience, as well as have this rule grant some actual benefit for a Thousand Sons
army instead of just adding more restrictions.

• Cult Arcana: Units with this ability gain the <Cult> keyword. With the exception of HQ choices, compulsory choices in a Thousand
Sons Detachment must choose the same <Cult> as the Warlord (if possible). The five cults and their respective abilities are listed here:
• Athanean: Enemy Psykers suffer -1 to attempts to manifest psychic powers within 18” of models from the Athenaean cult.
This is simply an improved Shadow in the Warp from the Tyranids, and even then it would not be considered useful as a subfaction attribute
in constructed 8th edition. This is compounded by their poor psychic selections, the only generally useful power being Mass Hypnosis.

• Corvidae: Models from the Corvidae cult can re-roll hit rolls of 1 in Shooting phase, if they were stationary in the Movement phase.
Again, this is simply a worse version of the Dark Angels subfaction trait. This does not make sense, nor is it really lore-friendly.
The same argument for the Athanean cult applies to this as well. It is weaker than a standard WH40k 8th edition subfaction trait, and not
even a particularly good one at that. The Corvidae are seers, and the "reroll of 1 if they did not move" does not make sense with their lore.

• Pavoni: Models from the Pavoni cult can re-roll failed charge rolls.
Once more, this is simply a worse subfaction attribute (Craftworld Eldar's Saim'Hann trait includes this, along with the added bonus that BIKERs
ignore the penalty to move and shoot.) It also does not really make sense in the lore either, as the Pavoni have mastered the art of Biomancy.

• Pyrae: Models from the Pyrae cult are equipped with Psychic flames.
This is a truly unique cult attribute, and one of the two attributes that I consider to be truly unique and fitting of Thousand Sons lore. Kudos
to you.

• Raptora: Models from the Raptora cult have a 6+ invulnerable save, or add 1 to their existing invulnerable save.
Again, this is a unique and fitting ability for the Raptora cult. This ability is very fluffy, and quite balanced.

Kudos to you for including each Prosperine cult as a core gameplay mechanic for the Thousand Sons. However, each bonus provided is incredibly
underwhelming, especially considering how restrictive the "same cult as Warlord" clause is, added with the fact that this is the only real
benefit gained by Thousand Sons for their legion rules.

I propose it be changed to this:

• Cult Arcana: Units with this ability gain the <Cult> keyword. With the exception of HQ choices, compulsory choices in a Thousand
Sons Detachment must share the same <Cult> keyword (if possible). The five cults and their respective abilities are listed here:

• Athanean: Models from the Athanean cult automatically pass Morale tests (do not roll the dice.)
This is reflective of the 7th edition HH attribute granting immunity to Fear and Adamantium Will. This helps with Signs and Portents.

• Corvidae: Whenever a model from the Corvidae cult loses a wound, roll a dice. on a 6+, the wound is not lost.
This is reminiscent of Ulthwe's Foresight of the Damned trait, which is the same as the proposed Corvidae trait. This reflects the
uncanny prescience the Corvidae have, and offer a decent attribute that is universally useful.

• Pavoni: Models from the Pavoni cult add 1 to their Movement characteristic and can add 1" to the distance they can Advance.
Again, somewhat copied from the 7th edition HH trait where they can run and sweeping advance with +1 to the roll. It tones that down
somewhat, though it's far from overpowered. I contemplated adding a mutable +1 S, T, or A buff, but that seemed way too overpowered.

• Pyrae: Models from the Pyrae cult are equipped with Psychic flames.
No change needed here, though I do propose a change to the psychic flames weapon itself:
Psychic Flames: Range Type S AP D Abilities
8" Pistol 1 5 0 1 This weapon automatically hits its target
This would allow the power to scale with squad size, which would make the Axis of Dissolution's requirement of maximum Troops unit sizes
much less of a disadvantage. It also lessens the wordiness and complexity of the weapon itself, and makes more sense, as a unit combining its
psychic strength makes more sense than only allowing a single model to use it.

• Raptora: Models from the Raptora cult have a 6+ invulnerable save, or add 1 to their existing invulnerable save.
No change needed here, but note that it would allow Sekhmet Terminator Cabals to gain a 2+ Invulnerable save (native 4++
from Cataphractii Armour, coupled with +1 from Raptora Cult and +1 from Psychic Barrier). Overall, note that the Raptora
Cult right now is by far the strongest cult, having the best psychic selections (Warptime, Weaver of Fates, and Miasma of Pestilence
are their counterparts in WH40k 8th edition and they are all fantastic psychic powers.) Perhaps add a "To a maximum of 3+" clause
in there.

• Signs & Portents: Each time a unit with this trait suffers a wound as a result of Perils of the Warp, all friendly Thousand Sons Astartes
suffer -1 to their Leadership when taking Morale tests for the rest of that battle round. In addition, if all Thousand Sons Characters in
the army are slain, all friendly Thousand Sons Astartes suffer -1 to their Leadership when taking Morale tests for the rest of the game.
This is a very strong disadvantage, making each Perils proc force a -d3 ld penalty on Thousand Sons. However, considering the proposed upsides,
especially the Athenean cult revamp, this disadvantage is manageable (especially with Litanies).

Regarding Legion Wargear:
Thousand Sons models have access to the following wargear:
• A Character (without the Psyker keyword), Legion Veteran Tactical Squads and Legion Terminator Squads can take the Psyker upgrade.
• Any Psyker Character can replace their chainsword with a force sword, force axe or force stave.
• Any Psyker Character can take arcane litanies.
• Any Character, Veteran Tactcal Squad, Legion Terminator Squad or Tactical Support Squad can take Asphyx shells.
• Any Contemptor Dreadnought can take the Osirion upgrade.
• Any model can replace it’s Plasma cannon/Heavy plasma cannon with a Ætherfire cannon.
• In addition, a model in a Thousand Sons detachment can choose the Luminiferous Resonator instead of a relic from the Legiones
Astartes list.

I would advocate to allow ALL Thousand Sons INFANTRY units to take the Psyker upgrade, to reflect the ubiquity of psychic mutations
in the Thousand Sons legion. This would not be TOO game-breaking, but it would be a fluffy bonus.

I would then also advocate to allow any Thousand Sons INFANTRY unit to take Arcane Litanies, to make the Signs and Portents
legion trait more manageable.

As of now, the Luminiferous Resonator relic is quite weak. It also does not really reflect the psychic focus of the legion. Thus,
I propose it be replaced with this:
The Book of Magnus: PSYKERS only. This character knows 1 additional psychic power, generated from any cult discipline, and can
attempt to cast 1 additional power per psychic phase.
This is a useful artefact for any point value, because it adds some psychic versatility. It essentially lets 1 character take on
the psychic responsibility of two without having to buy another one for another power you want. This may be a little powerful, but
I feel that it will not be too overpowering, as a Praetor equipped with it will be able to cast 3 and deny 2 powers, on par with
Ahriman. It may be used to allow players to create a Magister Templi (which you do not currently have rules for). Thus, the pts value
of this artefact may be equated to roughly 20 or 30 pts.

Regarding the Thousand Sons Warlord Trait:
A Thousand Sons Warlord may choose the following Warlord trait:
• Psychic Exemplar: The Warlord may add 1 to any Psychic tests made to manifest powers from their Cult Discipline. Any rolls of 12+
count as Perils of the Warp.
This does not really make sense. The "result of 12+ still triggers Perils" clause is shared by Ork Weirdboyz. This is not lore-friendly.
Why would a Psychic Exemplar be unable to control their prodigious power? Additionally, this makes their Covenant of Sorcerers stratagem
much more dangerous when used on this warlord, as, RAW, the +2 bonus will vastly increase the chance of triggering Perils, and S&P, as well.

Thus, I propose it be changed to this:
• Psychic Exemplar: The Warlord may add 1 to any Psychic tests made to manifest powers from their Cult Discipline.

Regarding the Legion Rites of war:
The Axis of Dissolution
This rite may only be taken by a Patrol or Battalion detachment.
Advantages:
• The Alembic of Adamant: Thousand Sons units in this detachment ignore Morale tests when they are within 6” of an objective.
Due to the Athanean Cult's proposed rework making this obsolete, I will suggest a change.
• The Caustic of Grace: Thousand Sons units in this detachment hit on 5+ when firing overwatch.
• The Transition of Vitriol: Thousand Sons units in this detachment may re-roll failed hit and wound rolls against enemy units
which Fell Back in their previous turn.
Drawbacks:
• This rite may only be taken by a Patrol or Battalion detachment.
• All Troops choices in this detachment must be at the maximum possible unit size.
• This detachment may not have more units with the Vehicle keyword (except Dreadnoughts) than it has with the Infantry
keyword.

All in all, a fluffy and solid detachment, especially with the proposed Athanean and Cult Abilities rework. Every cult has
its unique strengths that fit into this Rite. I propose the Alembic of Adamant be changed to this:
THOUSAND SONS INFANTRY units in this detachment receive the benefit of cover when they are wholly within 6" of an objective.

This grants some great protection while still being vulnerable to Phosphor weaponry and mortal wounds, as well as cover-
ignoring abilities and psychic powers.

The Guard of the Crimson King
This rite may only be taken by a Vanguard detachment.
Advantages:
• Wreathed in Lightning, They Rend the Veil: Thousand Sons Terminator and Character units gain the Teleport Assault ability
and, when they are set up on the board, can re-roll failed invulnerable saves of 1 until their next turn.
This potentially allows another iteration of the Screamerstar, with 2++ rerollable Sekhmet Cabals. You may want to look into this.
• Teleport Assault: During deployment, you can set up this unit in the teleportarium chamber instead of placing it on the battlefield.
At the end of any of your Movement phases this unit can perform a teleport assault - set it up anywhere on the battlefield that is more
than 9” away from any enemy models.
• The Initiates of the Scarab: Sekhmet Cabals must be the compulsory Elites choices in this detachment.
• The Bidding of the Crimson King: Magnus the Red may be selected as a HQ choice in this detachment.
Drawbacks:
• This rite may only be taken by a Vanguard detachment.
• The Warlord must be in this detachment, and that Warlord must either be Magnus the Red, Ahzek Ahriman or a Thousand Sons
Praetor.
• This detachment may not have more units with the Vehicle keyword than it has with the Astartes keyword.
• Your army may not include a Fortification Network detachment.
• Your army may not include any units without the Thousand Sons keyword.
I am happy with how this Rite is, both fluff wise and balance wise. No changes needed, except the possible 2++ rerollable cheese.

Regarding the Khenetai Blade Cabals:
Each Khenetai Blade costs 21 pts. Coupled with the 10-pt cost of their Force Blades, this brings the combined cost for 1 model up to
31 pts per model. This is *very overpriced.*
Compare them to a Dark Eldar Incubus, which costs 16 pts combined (half as much):
Model: M WS BS S T W A Ld Sv
Incubus: 7" 3+ 3+ 3 3 1 3 7 3+
Blade: 6" 2+ 3+ 4 4 1 2 7 3+

Compare their weapons:
Weapon (pt cost) S AP D Abilities
Klaive (4 pts): +1 -3 1 -
Force Blades (10 pts: User -3 d3 -

Compare Abilities:
Incubi:
Power from Pain (6+ FnP Turn 1, add reroll failed charges Turn 2, +1 to hit in melee Turn 3, immune to Morale Turn 4, -1 Ld 6" aura Turn 5)
Tormentors (If a morale test is failed within 6", 1 extra model flees)

Khenetai Blades:
Mindsong of Blades
Psyker (probably best being Burning Blades from the Pyrae discipline)

In summary:
Incubi are faster, slightly less tough, have more attacks, comparable abilities, and cost half as much as Khenetai Blades.
They perform equally well against all single-wound targets, though the Blades come into their own against multi-wound targets, though
they will wound most of them on a 5+ or 6+ (4+ or 5+ with Burning Blades active). The d3 damage will then allow them to deal double
damage Incubi would do. However, this is not really their niche. You're supposed to throw Terminators to crack vehicles and heavy infantry
in melee, not a dual sword unit, which seems much more offensively focused.

From a points standpoint, Force Blades are Force Swords thatcost 2 additional points for some reason. Thus, I propose they be changed to 8 pts (from 10) for consistency. Mindwong of Blades is fantastic,
though the +2 Attacks effect is required for this unit to perform even remotely on par with Incubi. And, this makes them very susceptible to
Morale and ranged fire. Thus, I propose their base profile be raised to 3 Attacks (reflecting their dual weapons or martial mastery), and the
bonus granted by 9-10 models reduced to +1 Attack. In addition, I propose the pts cost of a Khenetai Blade be lowered to 18 pts (from 21), making
the effective pt cost of a Khenetai Blade 26 pts (from 31), a minimal unit to 130 pts (from 155), and a maximum unit to 260 pts (from 310 pts).
I propose lowering the +1 Attack threshhold given by Mindsong of Blades to 7-10 (from 9-10) to lower the required risk of running large squads of Blades.
This will put their performance (and cost) roughly on par with that of Khorne Berzerkers in WH40k standard 8th edition. The issue of d3 damage weapons still
stands, however, and thus there is the option for Force Blades to grant S:+1 instead of S:User, and keep their points cost at 10, though this would
shift their focus from "storm of blades" tarpit crackers to "storm of blades" transport and tank crackers.

Regarding more Wargear:
Arcane Litanies are overpriced. Chaos Space Marine Sorcerers may take Familiars for 10 pts, which grants a flat +1 to cast psychic powers. Thus,
I propose Arcane Litanies allow the reroll of 1 dice per psychic phase, or have their price decreased to 5 pts.

I propose a new wargear be added: Tutelaries. Tutelaries are small daemon familiars that Thousand Sons sorcerers often had, increasing their psychic
powers, though they turned on the Thousand Sons during the Burning of Prospero, overloading them with chaos energy until they became Chaos Spawn.
Thus, I propose this new wargear be added:
Tutelary (8 pts): may add 1 to any Psychic tests made to manifest powers from their Cult Discipline. Any rolls of 12+
count as Perils of the Warp.
This is strong, fluffy, and balanced (it is 2 pts cheaper than the chaos familiar option because of the added risk.)

Asphyx Shells, I believe, are priced well.

I feel the Aetherfire Cannon is a little weak for the price point, being a slightly stronger unsupercharged Plasmagun, for 8 more points.
I propose it be changed to either of the following profiles:
Range Type S AP D Abilities
36" Heavy 3 7 -3 d3 -
24" Assault 3 7 -3 d3 -
This makes it worth roughly 1.5 rapidfiring plasmaguns, reflective of its cost. The Heavy version would basically make it a better, higher
priced Autocannon. The Assault version would simply make it an improved plasmagun for deleting heavy infantry.

Regarding Ahzek Ahriman:
I was, quite frankly, disappointed with the Thousand Sons characters' casting abilities. Ahriman in 8th edition gets 3 casts and denies, with +1 to all of them.
This should be his casting statline in 8th edition HH (add 1 deny as well as a tutelary), with his price increased
to 155 pts to compensate.

I very much like Magistus Amon, though I propose adding a tutelary to his abilities and increasing his price from 162 pts to 170 pts.

Similarly, I am rather disappointed with Magnus' psychic capabilities. Like his standard WH40k 8th edition iteration, he should get
+2 base to cast from Arch Sorceror, and though he should be able to cast and deny four powers per psychic phase, the accompanying price
increase would bring it out of line with the powerlevel of other Primarchs. Thus, I suggest Arch Sorceror be modified to grant +2 to cast
and deny, while increasing his denial range to 30". His price should be raised to 470 pts (from 460) accordingly.

Regarding Sekhmet Cabals:
A Sekhmet Terminator's base cost is 40 pts. This, coupled with the Force Weapon cost of 8 pts, puts them at an astonishing 48 pts per model.
They are criminally overpriced (once the 2++ rerollable cheese is addressed). To put this in perspective, Thunder Hammer/Storm Shield terminators
in regular WH40k 8th edition cost less, while they have a 3++ invuln and Sx2 weapons with AP-3 and a flat 3 damage, with 1 less wound.
I would strongly suggest reducing their base points cost to 33 pts, making a Power Fist Sekhmet Terminator 45 pts. Compared with the Adeptus Mechanicus
Cybernetica Datasmith model, it would be 1 pt more expensive, though with a comparable ranged weapon and 1 less wound, though with psyker capabilities.
A fair price.

I very much like the design of Ammitara Intercessors, I do not believe a change is necessary.

Reply by: basedgigi - click to view full reply 

112857

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2018/11/23 04:30:34

Post by: basedgigi

I'm just now reading the version 3 rules, and I like them a lot. A few minor quibbles:

I feel like normal terminators are objectively worse than tartaros, they should be cheaper in some way.
Also, is there a way to make artificer armor an option for sergeant wargear?

For thousand sons, a clarifying line about asphyx shells would be nice. If you buy them for vets or termies does the whole squad need to purchase them, or is it per model?

Reply by: geordie09 - click to view full reply 

18594

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2018/12/10 22:46:18

Post by: geordie09

 Sir Heckington wrote:
Some notes, really loving this.

First thing, from me, is Iron Hands seem OP. Their negatives aren't nearly as bad as in HH 7th, I rarely run with them anyway. Something else to be a drawback would be nice (And this is as the Iron Hands player in the group.)

]

I can confirm, Iron Hands do appear to be OP. Animosity hosted a day based on Istvaan V last week and the Iron Hands rolled through their three opponents with ease...

Reply by: Potte - click to view full reply 

121709

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2018/12/14 08:02:36

Post by: Potte

Will HH8th be adjusted in points, now that CA18 will be released?

Reply by: HandofMars - click to view full reply 

87439

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2018/12/26 00:30:22

Post by: HandofMars

Regarding Alpha Legion, banestrike should probably just improve AP by 1. Jumping straight to -2 is a bit much and kind of steps on the heavy bolter’s toes.

Armillus is supposed to be a weapon master but has always been saddled with low number of attacks. Maybe make his power sword a special one that can make an extra attack every time he fights, to represent his old rule of fighting with multiple weapons.

Reply by: madcadian - click to view full reply 

122777

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2019/01/09 11:45:33

Post by: madcadian

I want to say thank you for doing this!
becouse of you, doing all this work, all of our comunities 30k players are back on the track, after allmost quitting, when 8th edition came up. We also got some new people starting with the horus heresy.
now we are nearly 20 folks playing. currently we are testing around and we let you how it works out.

Reply by: smurfORnot - click to view full reply 

68827

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2019/01/10 08:19:46

Post by: smurfORnot

HandofMars wrote:
Regarding Alpha Legion, banestrike should probably just improve AP by 1. Jumping straight to -2 is a bit much and kind of steps on the heavy bolter’s toes.

Armillus is supposed to be a weapon master but has always been saddled with low number of attacks. Maybe make his power sword a special one that can make an extra attack every time he fights, to represent his old rule of fighting with multiple weapons.

Not really sure I would buy ap -1 for 3 pts...actually this is the first time I have feeling banestrike rounds have use. In last edition there was 0 point in taking them, especially when you had vets who had rending.

Still, HB battery for 76 pts that gets you 12 shoots is one of the best cost effective things legions has, it just mops infantry. If you really wanna cheez out, max out on these and there is not much that other player can put out in form of infantry that can hurt you. For like 10 equipped terminators(banerounds combi bolters and pf etc.) you get 6 battery's, that's 72 shots coming towards enemy...I can assure you, those 6 HB battery's are way more dangerous than combi terminators. For extra cheeze have primarch nearby your fire base since everything rerolls everything and you have counter for cc units. For around around 1750 pts you get 18 batetrys and primarch LOL, which leaves plenty for AT in bigger games, and 216 shoots that reroll to hit and to wound, will put even dent to armor if you want after they clear all infantry in max 2 turns...

Not saying you should do it,lol, we kinda max use 3 HB ones because they are OP for cost.

Reply by: Potte - click to view full reply 

121709

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2019/01/15 09:42:48

Post by: Potte

are there plans for battle scribe files for 8th ed. HH?

Reply by: tarar2d2 - click to view full reply 

51001

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2019/01/15 20:47:23

Post by: tarar2d2

Awesome stuff. I've had a couple of games with the Night Lords, and although they were both against 40k armies, I thought I might chime in with a few thoughts about how they played.

First off, the games I had were great fun, so please take the following as constructive criticism rather than bashing what you've done.

Now, my suggestions/insights are (sorry for the semi-wall of text):

Spoiler:

- The Legion Trait 'A Talent For Murder' should probably specify that you need more friendly INFANTRY models than enemy INFANTRY models. I played against a guy who brought a load of tanks, and because they were technically just one model, I was able to take them out with my infantry a load easier than I believe I should have. The second game I played, I made sure to adjust that myself, but I never ended up getting into CC with any vehicles. However, the official rules specify infantry, so I thought it might be a good idea to carry that over.
- Trophies of Judgement have two rules listings, one saying enemy units that have taken casualties must take their moral at a -1, and the other saying units within 3" are -1Ld. That's something that I feel needs clearing up.
- The Horror Cult RoW doesn't really give any benefits that I would personally deem worth it. You are restricted to having to bring Raptors, having to be traitors, having to charge, and not allowed any fortifications/other Legions etc. The only real benefit is the 3 CP rather than 1, and maybe the Trophies of Judgement (I don't know if the Kharybdis is any good, as I don't have one myself). I don't really know what else to do to this RoW to make it more worth is bar potentially raising the CP, which brings me to my next point.
- I feel that the CP for both RoWs (and probably all RoW for all Legions, although I haven't had a proper look) should maybe be increased to 4 or 5, similar to the Battalion detachment. With the Terror Assault, I felt very limited with the 6CP, which in both games were delegated to just keeping the Night Raider stratagem going. Alternatively, I feel the RoW should change the unit's type from Elite or Fast Attack to Troop, so people can simply take the Battalion Detachment.
- The Night Raider stratagem is really quite powerful, making my Night Lords a load more survivable than normal. To counter this, you could make the cost of the stratagem be the same as the game turn, so by turn 3 it's 3CP, turn 4 it's 4CP, etc. This would counter the power, be similar to the official rules (second turn night fighting on a 2+, third turn on a 4+ etc), and make for an interesting stratagem.
- The first part of the Terror Squad's 'Executioners' ability is very powerful. I feel it should emulate the official rules, and be re-rolls of 1s against Infantry rather than re-rolls of fails. Their 'Concealed Positions' ability also seems very strong on paper, but so far it hasn't been too overpowering in the games I've played.
- Personally I think the Night Raptors should be WS 2+, but loose the re-roll 1s, as that is again more similar to the official rules. However, I have not properly used them in a game, and I realise there may be some combinations that makes that too powerful (eg then and Curze might be very strong if they hit on 2+), so feel free to ignore this.
- Sevatar's 'Master of the Atrementar' ability should maybe be increased to 6", as it can be very difficult to set up an entire squad within 3", especially if the squad is at max size. I also think the '1" closer' thing doesn't feel right for the rule, but I can't think of a more suitable alternative that isn't OP, so I guess it's as good as.
- Talking about Sevatar, I personally think his Psychic power should be what it is in the official rules; re-rolling hits, wounds, and saving throws. However, this again might end up being too powerful in your eyes, so feel free to ignore.
- Finally, I think Curze should have the 'Jump Pack Assault' ability that all Jump Pack Infantry units have, again to simply carry over some of the rules from the official rules.

Hopefully these all make sense. As I said, I really enjoyed playing with these rules, and I hope I haven't come off as nob (and not the Ork kind). I apologise if any of these suggestions have been made before, or if any of the rules were originally how I'm suggesting, but were changed due to them being too powerful.

Any questions about my suggestions feel free to ask.

Thanks!

EDIT: Put the suggestions into a spoiler to keep things a bit tidier

Reply by: Akahito - click to view full reply 

111767

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2019/01/27 04:56:41

Post by: Akahito

 tarar2d2 wrote:
Awesome stuff. I've had a couple of games with the Night Lords, and although they were both against 40k armies, I thought I might chime in with a few thoughts about how they played.

First off, the games I had were great fun, so please take the following as constructive criticism rather than bashing what you've done.

Now, my suggestions/insights are (sorry for the semi-wall of text):

Spoiler:

- The Legion Trait 'A Talent For Murder' should probably specify that you need more friendly INFANTRY models than enemy INFANTRY models. I played against a guy who brought a load of tanks, and because they were technically just one model, I was able to take them out with my infantry a load easier than I believe I should have. The second game I played, I made sure to adjust that myself, but I never ended up getting into CC with any vehicles. However, the official rules specify infantry, so I thought it might be a good idea to carry that over.
- Trophies of Judgement have two rules listings, one saying enemy units that have taken casualties must take their moral at a -1, and the other saying units within 3" are -1Ld. That's something that I feel needs clearing up.
- The Horror Cult RoW doesn't really give any benefits that I would personally deem worth it. You are restricted to having to bring Raptors, having to be traitors, having to charge, and not allowed any fortifications/other Legions etc. The only real benefit is the 3 CP rather than 1, and maybe the Trophies of Judgement (I don't know if the Kharybdis is any good, as I don't have one myself). I don't really know what else to do to this RoW to make it more worth is bar potentially raising the CP, which brings me to my next point.
- I feel that the CP for both RoWs (and probably all RoW for all Legions, although I haven't had a proper look) should maybe be increased to 4 or 5, similar to the Battalion detachment. With the Terror Assault, I felt very limited with the 6CP, which in both games were delegated to just keeping the Night Raider stratagem going. Alternatively, I feel the RoW should change the unit's type from Elite or Fast Attack to Troop, so people can simply take the Battalion Detachment.
- The Night Raider stratagem is really quite powerful, making my Night Lords a load more survivable than normal. To counter this, you could make the cost of the stratagem be the same as the game turn, so by turn 3 it's 3CP, turn 4 it's 4CP, etc. This would counter the power, be similar to the official rules (second turn night fighting on a 2+, third turn on a 4+ etc), and make for an interesting stratagem.
- The first part of the Terror Squad's 'Executioners' ability is very powerful. I feel it should emulate the official rules, and be re-rolls of 1s against Infantry rather than re-rolls of fails. Their 'Concealed Positions' ability also seems very strong on paper, but so far it hasn't been too overpowering in the games I've played.
- Personally I think the Night Raptors should be WS 2+, but loose the re-roll 1s, as that is again more similar to the official rules. However, I have not properly used them in a game, and I realise there may be some combinations that makes that too powerful (eg then and Curze might be very strong if they hit on 2+), so feel free to ignore this.
- Sevatar's 'Master of the Atrementar' ability should maybe be increased to 6", as it can be very difficult to set up an entire squad within 3", especially if the squad is at max size. I also think the '1" closer' thing doesn't feel right for the rule, but I can't think of a more suitable alternative that isn't OP, so I guess it's as good as.
- Talking about Sevatar, I personally think his Psychic power should be what it is in the official rules; re-rolling hits, wounds, and saving throws. However, this again might end up being too powerful in your eyes, so feel free to ignore.
- Finally, I think Curze should have the 'Jump Pack Assault' ability that all Jump Pack Infantry units have, again to simply carry over some of the rules from the official rules.

Hopefully these all make sense. As I said, I really enjoyed playing with these rules, and I hope I haven't come off as nob (and not the Ork kind). I apologise if any of these suggestions have been made before, or if any of the rules were originally how I'm suggesting, but were changed due to them being too powerful.

Any questions about my suggestions feel free to ask.

Thanks!

EDIT: Put the suggestions into a spoiler to keep things a bit tidier

As i Night Lord Player i join your Suggestions.

@Horro Cult:
Maybe, as a good start of changing, just a need auf 2 Raptor Squads?

Reply by: Kharne the Befriender - click to view full reply 

97127

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2019/01/27 05:29:30

Post by: Kharne the Befriender

Phenomenally impressive work here! Is there a ruleset conversion for the HH mechanicum units?

Reply by: madcadian - click to view full reply 

122777

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2019/02/03 13:32:55

Post by: madcadian

I have a little issue with the White Scars power glaive.
when wielded double handed it is not worth its points. Loosing one Attack, for gaining a power axe with ds-3 is... compared with power claws pair, ore a power fist...no match.

sollution would be in my opinnion
- S+2, DS -2, D2 when wielded doublehanded,
then this Weapon lies somewhere between the claws and the power fist. imo. drawback could stay the same. but loosing 1A is a realy hard one. maybe -1to hit would be better, cause a Vetsarge would still be on 2A. same for terminators and so on.


on the other hand... I've played 5 games up to now, with powerlvl. and I must admit...it plays out very well! got way more fun in these games, than I had with 40k for quite a while.

I hope to see more from you guys! looking forward to mechanicum..and the new bloodies, demons aaand Sons of Chogoris of corse.

Reply by: Zub - click to view full reply 

45246

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2019/02/06 15:49:36

Post by: Zub

A few comments on IW.
The pricing of the Tyrants is crazy high IMO. As the twin missile launcher costs 50 points, the price of the terminator is around 90 points.
Erasmus Golg is missing his ability to make terminators troops.

Regarding the legion specific units, maybe it will be good to add also pricing of their equipment. It is quite pain to have to look up all the prices in a different book.

Reply by: SkuzlBuTt - click to view full reply 

90859

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2019/02/13 05:48:23

Post by: SkuzlBuTt

Howdy, got any rules for mechs 30k?

Reply by: Athurion - click to view full reply 

77146

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2019/02/21 01:08:50

Post by: Athurion

Hi guys, first of all I wanted thank the people behind this for their dedication and commitment bringing this forward, I've always wanted to play 30k but the thought of having to relearn 7th edition rules is haunting!

A couple things I wanted to bring to your attention though, I hope they haven't been answered already:

Firstly I noticed, other than from a modelling standpoint, there's not much point taking power lance's as they are identical to power mauls.
I loved power lance's in 7th edition, though they were a little underwhelming, they looked great and worked well with units that liked to charge, in 8th edition GW did well to create more viability and versatility between the power weapons.
I was thinking something along the lines of making power lances S+1, AP-1 D1 but improving one or more of the stats on the charge, probably damage as it would then differentiate it from all the other power weapons and make it much more of a consideration for units that benefit by charging,

Now I'm a big fan of Alpharius, but that doesn't mean I have anything against Rogal Dorn... But seriously, in the regular 7th edition rules Dorn has between 7 and 9 attacks on the charge I believe, however in the new iteration, having 3 hits per attack means he is GUARANTEED 18 attacks on the charge.
That's 18 attacks at S6 Ap-2 D1, with 6+ To Wound, causing an extra damage, and not to mention rerolling all failed Hit and Wound rolls. He has the potential to dish out 36 damage in one round of combat. That's madness!
I think the best thing to do would just be give him D3+1 extra attacks with the Reaping Slash profile instead of 3 hits per attack, this brings him into the same potential attack range as the 7th edition rules.

And thanks again guys, cant wait to get some games in!

Reply by: geordie09 - click to view full reply 

18594

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2019/05/06 12:58:10

Post by: geordie09

Ey up chaps. Was wondering if the project had stalled? Was hoping to see some of the new book stuff adapted.

Reply by: madcadian - click to view full reply 

122777

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2019/05/13 20:52:40

Post by: madcadian

so do we all.

Reply by: Mayple - click to view full reply 

124385

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2019/06/20 20:05:00

Post by: Mayple

I might be missing something obvious, but is there a point value listed somewhere in the documents for the various primarchs? I'm seeing their stats, and have no issue finding the point values for everything else, but the primarch points are eluding me.

Reply by: AndrewGPaul - click to view full reply 

62705

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2019/06/21 09:05:14

Post by: AndrewGPaul

In the Legions book, they're in the "Legion Points Cost" table for each legion. Fulgrim costs 370 points, for example.

Reply by: gram173 - click to view full reply 

124976

The 8ed Heresy Project - Nov’18 v3.2 Uploaded @ 2019/09/11 08:44:27

Post by: gram173

First of all i want to thank everyone who converted the rules in the 8th edition. That is some awesome work! I noticed in the Imperialis Militia Armylist some differences, like the number of models in the recon squad or the special weapons for the grenadiers. Is there a reason for the changes? Thanks anyway!!