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

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.