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.

I've been working on a homebrew ruleset for 40k for almost two years now. Now this is missing a lot of context since I've been rewriting the factions quite a bit, but I want to know how you generally feel about the main changes. The ruleset is based on 9th edition, but has a few key changes and design philosophies that make it quite a bit different from 9th:

-Reintroduction of the Weapon Skill characteristic alongside a reworked and (imo) improved comparison chart:



The point here is that it's easier to hit "up" so to speak, so a combatant is not instantly punished if the enemy has 1 WS more -> thus still hitting on a 4+. But a combatant is also instantly rewarded for having 1 better WS -> thus hitting on 3+ and so forth.
This change has been one of the most solid so far. Just as a reference the Standard Space Marine is the baseline with WS 5, everything else branches out from there.

-Reintroduction of the Initiative characteristic:

this one is still a balancing act, but I think it has merit: the Fight Phase is obviously massively influenced by this because models with higher initiative fight first. Though it needs to be said that some weapons modify your own initiative (Thunder hammers giving a -1) and making a successful charge gives the entire unit +D3 Initiative. So it is not an inflexible stat where eldar always fight first like in previous editions.

-Removal of Stratagems:

I've renamed them reactions like in Heresy and there are a set of standard reactions each faction has access to (for example giving a charging unit +3 Initiative instead of D3). Also each faction has 5 unique Reactions. Each Reaction can only be used once per game! (with Overwatch being the exception which can be used once per turn).

-Fewer re-rolls:

Most faction HQs don't have a bubble giving out re-rolls anymore, instead most select a friendly unit in the command phase to get some sort of re-rolls until your next turn.

-Wound and Hit Modifiers:

There is no cap on how much you can modify to hit or to wound modifiers: but an unmodified 6 to hit and to wound always hits/wounds. Especially to hit modifiers in melee are quite rare and seen as powerful/expensive abilities because they often provide a big jump on the WS comparison chart.

-Positive Armor Save modifiers cap at 0+

-Obscuring Terrain Changes

Obscuring Terrain no longer blocks line of sight: instead if a unit draws line of sight through an obscuring terrain feature towards an enemy unit, the shooting unit suffers a -2 to hit penalty (if the target unit is receiving the benefits of light cover from that very obscuring terrain feature, so if they are in the ruin or what have you, the shooting unit does NOT suffer the -2 to hit. It's only when you shoot trough)

-Cover:

Units gain Light Cover if half or more of that units models is within the terrain feature or has contact with the terrain feature or it's base if it has a base.

Charges:

work the same, but the charging unit MAY move half the distance of their charge roll if they fail the charge. They have to move closer to the target unit. Charging unit gets +D3 Initiative for the following Fight Phase.

-Titanic units and Titanic Walkers

If a non-titanic model makes a melee attack against a unit with the titanic keyword, that unit always hits at least on a 4+ irrespective of the WS. If a unit with the Titanic-Walker keyword (so, knights primarily) makes a melee attack against an enemy unit without the Titanic-Walker keyword, it always hits at least on a 3+ irrespective of the enemy WS.

-Warlord Traits/Relics

Warlord Traits/Relics cost points again and all characters have a Wl-traits/relics points limit. Characters can take as much relics as they can afford, but can only have one Wl-trait (factions with historically powerful characters like chaos lords or greater demons can have two warlord traits on those units, but these are the exception)

That's the gist of it. Of course I can't post every detail of every faction, since the re-writes are extensive on some so there is some context missing, but I'd like to know how you feel about these general changes.

Edit:

Here's a small overview on how the various faction (that are finished) have changed in this system compared to 9th:

Admech:
Work similar to 9th, but without the weird and half baked seperation between skitarii and cult mechanicus, thus skitarii benefit from canticles for example. Canticles have some rewritten effects to make more of them useful. Also admech can build a techpriest to be a myrmidon secutor (those existed in heresy) via a Wl-trait, which gives massive stats buffs, but the techpriest cant buff/heal anymore.

CSM:
Biggest change is that veteran abilities are back: so you can buy different upgrades for units depending on what you want (better shooting, melee etc.). When a CSM unit destroys an enemy unit you roll for them to get a chaos boon depending on their chaos mark.

Dark Eldar:
Biggest change here is that you earn Torture Points if an enemy unit is destroyed, fails a leadership test, or if a Dark Eldar unit inflics a set number of unsaved wounds in melee. You can spend these points on permanent power from pain buffs, these buffs cost a various amount of Torture Points depending on the effect.

Guard:
You can buy regiment upgrades similar to CSM veteran abilities for your infantry squad -> x points to make the squad Catachan for example. Also they gain Massed Firepower: they select an enemy unit and all Guard units shooting that unit autowound on unmodified 6s to hit and these autowounds gain +1AP, you may only select a new target for Massed Firepower though if your current target has been destroyed.

Necrons:
Reanimation is in your command phase and on a roll of 5+ a dead model from the unit comes back. You can also roll for models that previously failed to reanimate. If an attack with double the strength of the necron models toughness destroyed that model, it is too damaged to reanimate. Some characters like overlords get the Eternal Life rule: when they die you place a marker on their position and in your command phase on a 5+ that character stands back up with D3 wounds....that sounds super busted on paper, but we've tested this a lot, and it was more of a flavor rule in most cases.

Orks:
Can still call a Waaagh!. Also gained the Strength through Carnage rule: Ork infantry, biker and cavalry unit gain a Carnage Counter if they have inflicted a set number of unsaved wounds in the fight phase. Each Carnage Counter they earn gives them stacking buffs, so they get stronger the longer they fight (1 counter is +1 Initiative for example since orks have a comparatively low Initiative, at 5 counters the unit gains a 5+ feelnopain)

Sororitas:
Stayed mostly the same with some minor adjustments

Votann:
stayed mostly the same, with some minor adjustments

Custodes:
Incredible statlines -> high WS, 4 Wounds (5 on Terminators), good Initiative...but very expensive per model even compared to official editions: a terminator costs 80p for example (also you can play Terminators as one model units if you want). They also all have the Talons of the Emperor rule which buffs Custodes and Sisters of Silence if they fight alongside each other: Sisters give Custodes a better feelnopain against mortals if they are near and Sisters are -1 to hit in melee if the enemy unit trying to hit the Sisters is also within Engagement Range of a Custodes unit (remember in this system -1 to hit in melee is a very powerful effect, though that effect only applies if an enemy unit tries to hit the sisters unit, because it would be busted on custodes.)

Space Marines:
got a more flexible Doctrine System and some consolidated Datasheets because screw all the 17 different Lieutenants. Re-written many of the chapters to make them more appealing (raven guard, imperial fists).

Chaos Knights:
Get a better (imo) Dread Aura system: you get stacking buffs each battleround and you have a branching tree to select from them. So battleround 1 you have a fixed ability, battleround 2-3 you can select from 2 different abilities, battleround 4-5 you select from 3 different abilities. Effects get more powerful the further you are down the tree and again, they are cumulative. You can select each ability each battleround independent of what ability you have selected last battleround, so it's not a tree in the sense that you have to follow a set path depending on what ability you have selected before.

Chaos Demons:
Each battleround the influence of the warp expands on the battlefield: so battleround 1 its your deployment zone, then no-mans land and then the whole battlefield. Demon units can deepstrike outside 6" of enemy units if that demon unit is wholly set up in an area that is influenced by the warp. Also enemy unit get -1 Leadership in areas that are influenced by the warp. If you play a mono-god list, your characters get abilities that further buff your units (+1 to advance and charge on khorne for example).
Greater Demons are massively powerful.

Harlequins:
Similar to 9th, but lost most of the combinations that made them busted in 9th.

Still have to do Imperial Knights, Eldar, Tau and Tyranids

Thanks for sharing! Some thoughts:

Tiberias wrote:

-Reintroduction of the Weapon Skill characteristic alongside a reworked and (imo) improved comparison chart:

Spoiler:

The point here is that it's easier to hit "up" so to speak, so a combatant is not instantly punished if the enemy has 1 WS more -> thus still hitting on a 4+. But a combatant is also instantly rewarded for having 1 better WS -> thus hitting on 3+ and so forth.
This change has been one of the most solid so far. Just as a reference the Standard Space Marine is the baseline with WS 5, everything else branches out from there.

Looks good! Why increase the baseline?

-Reintroduction of the Initiative characteristic:

this one is still a balancing act, but I think it has merit: the Fight Phase is obviously massively influenced by this because models with higher initiative fight first. Though it needs to be said that some weapons modify your own initiative (Thunder hammers giving a -1) and making a successful charge gives the entire unit +D3 Initiative. So it is not an inflexible stat where eldar always fight first like in previous editions.

Pretty solid approach. Are you leaving the initiative stats as they were? I could see this maybe working better if you scrunch values closer together. I2 orks needing to roll a 3 to even strike simultaneously with I5+ eldar could still be a feelsbad matchup, for instance.

-Removal of Stratagems:

I've renamed them reactions like in Heresy and there are a set of standard reactions each faction has access to (for example giving a charging unit +3 Initiative instead of D3). Also each faction has 5 unique Reactions. Each Reaction can only be used once per game! (with Overwatch being the exception which can be used once per turn).

Haven't played HH, but this seems like it's *probably* an improvement? I'm not sure I can think of 5 distinctive things I'd want eldar to do as a "reaction," and the reactions that do come to mind (ex: jinking, moving away from approaching enemies, going to ground, activating holo-fields) are all things that I'd want to do repeatedly; not just once. Maybe I'd change my mind after seeing them.

-Fewer re-rolls:

Most faction HQs don't have a bubble giving out re-rolls anymore, instead most select a friendly unit in the command phase to get some sort of re-rolls until your next turn.

Good change. Would put forward that you might consider having targeted benefits other than re-rolls. Especially if stratagems are going away. Having a lieutenant or autarch tell a unit to fall back and shoot/charge is pretty flavorful without directly adding to lethality. (Which 9th had an overabudance of.)

-Wound and Hit Modifiers:

There is no cap on how much you can modify to hit or to wound modifiers: but an unmodified 6 to hit and to wound always hits/wounds. Especially to hit modifiers in melee are quite rare and seen as powerful/expensive abilities because they often provide a big jump on the WS comparison chart.

I like this. Honestly, most of the problems with stacking to-hit penalties stemmed from just making it too easy to get multiple penalties on the same unit. If you, for instance, take away the -1army-wide to-hit rule from 8th edition Alaitoc, that army instantly becomes a lot less frustrating to face.

-Positive Armor Save modifiers cap at 0+

Why 0+ specifically? Marines having a 2+ save against most small arms fire was arguably an even bigger issue than terminators in cover having a -1+ save against weapons with AP. On that note, are you keeping most of the lethaltiy-creep changes to weapon profiles from 9th? i.e. the extra pip of AP that showed up all over the place, extra Attacks rules, etc.?

-Obscuring Terrain Changes

Obscuring Terrain no longer blocks line of sight: instead if a unit draws line of sight through an obscuring terrain feature towards an enemy unit, the shooting unit suffers a -2 to hit penalty (if the target unit is receiving the benefits of light cover from that very obscuring terrain feature, so if they are in the ruin or what have you, the shooting unit does NOT suffer the -2 to hit. It's only when you shoot trough)

Not sure how I feel about this one. Some armies feel the to-hit penalty a lot more than others. Being able to genuinely hide units behind terrain is more often a good thing than a bad thing in my opinion. Plus, this could easily result in armies fishing for 6s for most of the turn. AKA a lot of rolling for not much effect. Which was annoying in previous editions.

-Cover:

Units gain Light Cover if half or more of that units models is within the terrain feature or has contact with the terrain feature or it's base if it has a base.

Seems fine.

Charges:

work the same, but the charging unit MAY move half the distance of their charge roll if they fail the charge. They have to move closer to the target unit. Charging unit gets +D3 Initiative for the following Fight Phase.

Like the initiative change. Am fine with the optional move when failing a charge, but not sure if it's likely to make much difference. Generally, failing a charge one turn means you're either nearly guaranteed to succeed or already dead on the next turn. Seems like this would mostly get used to slingshot units onto objectives, into cover, etc. Which then kind of draws attention to how units weirdly speed up when enemies are nearby. Is the intention to make it harder to kite?

-Titanic units and Titanic Walkers

If a non-titanic model makes a melee attack against a unit with the titanic keyword, that unit always hits at least on a 4+ irrespective of the WS. If a unit with the Titanic-Walker keyword (so, knights primarily) makes a melee attack against an enemy unit without the Titanic-Walker keyword, it always hits at least on a 3+ irrespective of the enemy WS.

I'm not entirely surely what you're going for with this one. Are knights going to have sufficiently high WS or access to to-hit penalties that many units will benefit from this? I feel like most low WS units would be things like gretchin that probably aren't doing much damage even with a +1 to-hit. And conversely, hitting a small target with a big, clunky robot seems like it should be harder; not easier. Compare trying to hit the broad side of a barn to trying to punch a housefly. While Lelith Hesperax probably isn't parrying a knight's feet, it does seem like she should be better at dodging them than, say, a guardsman. So having the knight negate her high WS seems weird.

-Warlord Traits/Relics

Warlord Traits/Relics cost points again and all characters have a Wl-traits/relics points limit. Characters can take as much relics as they can afford, but can only have one Wl-trait (factions with historically powerful characters like chaos lords or greater demons can have two warlord traits on those units, but these are the exception)

I like the sound of this.

CSM:
Biggest change is that veteran abilities are back: so you can buy different upgrades for units depending on what you want (better shooting, melee etc.). When a CSM unit destroys an enemy unit you roll for them to get a chaos boon depending on their chaos mark.

Cool!

Dark Eldar:
Biggest change here is that you earn Torture Points if an enemy unit is destroyed, fails a leadership test, or if a Dark Eldar unit inflics a set number of unsaved wounds in melee. You can spend these points on permanent power from pain buffs, these buffs cost a various amount of Torture Points depending on the effect.

Sounds cool! One problem the 5th edition version of this ran into was that the squishiness of dark eldar units means that they often struggle to live long enough to enjoy the benefits of their pain tokens. Especially as having a bunch of scary buffs tends to make them a target. Any concern of something similar here?

Also, is this replacing the Power From Pain chart of 9th? Notoriously, 9th moved a lot of rules that many units relied on to function (ex: advance + charge) into the PFP chart. If you've ditched the chart, I'd worry about some important rules being lost or else locked behind a Torture Point paywall that might make it more difficult to sue some units. Ex: it's hard to use reavers as early game long-ranged chargers if you can't advance + charge until after something dies. And coven units that rely on the combined durability of FNP + invulns to be tanky might not be worth it if you have to spend all your TP on them to make them tanky.

Necrons:
Reanimation is in your command phase and on a roll of 5+ a dead model from the unit comes back. You can also roll for models that previously failed to reanimate. If an attack with double the strength of the necron models toughness destroyed that model, it is too damaged to reanimate. Some characters like overlords get the Eternal Life rule: when they die you place a marker on their position and in your command phase on a 5+ that character stands back up with D3 wounds....that sounds super busted on paper, but we've tested this a lot, and it was more of a flavor rule in most cases.

You roll a d6 for each slain model originally in the unit, right? Seems reasonable. Double strength doesn't seem like a bad approach for determining whether a model is perma-killed, but would it perhaps make more sense to tie it to Damage in some way? Maybe basing it off Strength is easier. Can models slain via mortal wounds come back?

Harlequins:
Similar to 9th, but lost most of the combinations that made them busted in 9th.

Can you elaborate? Even in 9th, harlies were walking a fine line between OP and unplayable. It's hard to balance an elite army of T3 with coin flips for saves.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Thanks for sharing! Some thoughts:

Tiberias wrote:

-Reintroduction of the Weapon Skill characteristic alongside a reworked and (imo) improved comparison chart:

Spoiler:

The point here is that it's easier to hit "up" so to speak, so a combatant is not instantly punished if the enemy has 1 WS more -> thus still hitting on a 4+. But a combatant is also instantly rewarded for having 1 better WS -> thus hitting on 3+ and so forth.
This change has been one of the most solid so far. Just as a reference the Standard Space Marine is the baseline with WS 5, everything else branches out from there.

Looks good! Why increase the baseline?

Increasing the baseline was to increase design space in this area. If a standard marine is WS5, a base Sororitas can be WS 4, and a guardsman can be WS 3. Same in the other direction: a Terminator can be WS6, a Howling Banshee can be WS7. These ares have never been used in previous editions and honestly work great with this new chart if you distribute WS sensibly.

-Reintroduction of the Initiative characteristic:

this one is still a balancing act, but I think it has merit: the Fight Phase is obviously massively influenced by this because models with higher initiative fight first. Though it needs to be said that some weapons modify your own initiative (Thunder hammers giving a -1) and making a successful charge gives the entire unit +D3 Initiative. So it is not an inflexible stat where eldar always fight first like in previous editions.

Pretty solid approach. Are you leaving the initiative stats as they were? I could see this maybe working better if you scrunch values closer together. I2 orks needing to roll a 3 to even strike simultaneously with I5+ eldar could still be a feelsbad matchup, for instance.

Initiative stats have been reworked as well, a Standard Marine has I5 for example, Orks an Necrons have I3 (but Orks have a faction ability that gives them +1 Initiative and +1 to hit when they charge...Orks are generally more dangerous when they charge).

-Removal of Stratagems:

I've renamed them reactions like in Heresy and there are a set of standard reactions each faction has access to (for example giving a charging unit +3 Initiative instead of D3). Also each faction has 5 unique Reactions. Each Reaction can only be used once per game! (with Overwatch being the exception which can be used once per turn).

Haven't played HH, but this seems like it's *probably* an improvement? I'm not sure I can think of 5 distinctive things I'd want eldar to do as a "reaction," and the reactions that do come to mind (ex: jinking, moving away from approaching enemies, going to ground, activating holo-fields) are all things that I'd want to do repeatedly; not just once. Maybe I'd change my mind after seeing them.

The design goal was to include these iconic abilites in other ways. The reactions work well imo because it adds a layer of thinking on when to use them best. For example Orks have one reaction they can use when a friendly vehicle unit is destroyed, that unit may move 2D6 towards the nearest enemy unit and if it reaches that unit it does Mortal Wounds (only after this effect do you roll for the standard explosion). This has been a powerful reaction in our testgames, especially on transports, but it's not something you vomit out all at once on the first turn like stratagems.

-Fewer re-rolls:

-Positive Armor Save modifiers cap at 0+

Why 0+ specifically? Marines having a 2+ save against most small arms fire was arguably an even bigger issue than terminators in cover having a -1+ save against weapons with AP. On that note, are you keeping most of the lethaltiy-creep changes to weapon profiles from 9th? i.e. the extra pip of AP that showed up all over the place, extra Attacks rules, etc.?

I've reworked a lot of the weapon stats and it has helped to reduce lethality. Generally the problem of lethality only comes into play in ranged combat in this system, because the weapon skill comparison chart can add a layer of protection in melee combat that managed to slow it down just enough. Gone are the days from 9th (and 10th for that matter) where if you get the charge, the enemy unit is just dead 99% of the time. In this system, combat often lasts two turns, which is exaclty what I was going for (wont last two turns if a unit of khorne berserkers charges some guardsmen, but you get my point).

-Obscuring Terrain Changes

Obscuring Terrain no longer blocks line of sight: instead if a unit draws line of sight through an obscuring terrain feature towards an enemy unit, the shooting unit suffers a -2 to hit penalty (if the target unit is receiving the benefits of light cover from that very obscuring terrain feature, so if they are in the ruin or what have you, the shooting unit does NOT suffer the -2 to hit. It's only when you shoot trough)

Not sure how I feel about this one. Some armies feel the to-hit penalty a lot more than others. Being able to genuinely hide units behind terrain is more often a good thing than a bad thing in my opinion. Plus, this could easily result in armies fishing for 6s for most of the turn. AKA a lot of rolling for not much effect. Which was annoying in previous editions.

This I feel is a matter of taste, the protective layer is there....and multiple of my players said they just enjoy rolling more dice. They were bummed out in 9th when they just couldn't shoot at anything if the enemy positioned well.

Charges:

work the same, but the charging unit MAY move half the distance of their charge roll if they fail the charge. They have to move closer to the target unit. Charging unit gets +D3 Initiative for the following Fight Phase.

Like the initiative change. Am fine with the optional move when failing a charge, but not sure if it's likely to make much difference. Generally, failing a charge one turn means you're either nearly guaranteed to succeed or already dead on the next turn. Seems like this would mostly get used to slingshot units onto objectives, into cover, etc. Which then kind of draws attention to how units weirdly speed up when enemies are nearby. Is the intention to make it harder to kite?

Since melee is generally a bit slower in this system as mentioned (which is intentional), this was a small change to not further penalize melee units.

-Titanic units and Titanic Walkers

If a non-titanic model makes a melee attack against a unit with the titanic keyword, that unit always hits at least on a 4+ irrespective of the WS. If a unit with the Titanic-Walker keyword (so, knights primarily) makes a melee attack against an enemy unit without the Titanic-Walker keyword, it always hits at least on a 3+ irrespective of the enemy WS.

I'm not entirely surely what you're going for with this one. Are knights going to have sufficiently high WS or access to to-hit penalties that many units will benefit from this? I feel like most low WS units would be things like gretchin that probably aren't doing much damage even with a +1 to-hit. And conversely, hitting a small target with a big, clunky robot seems like it should be harder; not easier. Compare trying to hit the broad side of a barn to trying to punch a housefly. While Lelith Hesperax probably isn't parrying a knight's feet, it does seem like she should be better at dodging them than, say, a guardsman. So having the knight negate her high WS seems weird.

Knights have semi-high WS (6-7 depending unit unit and traits/build): this change was to make it so that it was not completely futile to charge a knight if you are not a super dedicated melee unit. Because remember the comparison chart offers an additional layer of protection, coupled with the knights high toughness, this makes them quite a bit tougher in melee.

-Warlord Traits/Relics

Warlord Traits/Relics cost points again and all characters have a Wl-traits/relics points limit. Characters can take as much relics as they can afford, but can only have one Wl-trait (factions with historically powerful characters like chaos lords or greater demons can have two warlord traits on those units, but these are the exception)

I like the sound of this.

It's awsome, I've adapted and re-written a lot of relics to enable a lot of playstyles and builds for the different factions. And since they are tied to points, you can play around with powerful effects.

Dark Eldar:
Biggest change here is that you earn Torture Points if an enemy unit is destroyed, fails a leadership test, or if a Dark Eldar unit inflics a set number of unsaved wounds in melee. You can spend these points on permanent power from pain buffs, these buffs cost a various amount of Torture Points depending on the effect.

Sounds cool! One problem the 5th edition version of this ran into was that the squishiness of dark eldar units means that they often struggle to live long enough to enjoy the benefits of their pain tokens. Especially as having a bunch of scary buffs tends to make them a target. Any concern of something similar here?

Also, is this replacing the Power From Pain chart of 9th? Notoriously, 9th moved a lot of rules that many units relied on to function (ex: advance + charge) into the PFP chart. If you've ditched the chart, I'd worry about some important rules being lost or else locked behind a Torture Point paywall that might make it more difficult to sue some units. Ex: it's hard to use reavers as early game long-ranged chargers if you can't advance + charge until after something dies. And coven units that rely on the combined durability of FNP + invulns to be tanky might not be worth it if you have to spend all your TP on them to make them tanky.

We haven't tested Dark Eldar as much as I'd like, but in our games it was relatively easy to gain Torture Points, so Dark Eldar took about a turn to get going and then really took off.

Necrons:
Reanimation is in your command phase and on a roll of 5+ a dead model from the unit comes back. You can also roll for models that previously failed to reanimate. If an attack with double the strength of the necron models toughness destroyed that model, it is too damaged to reanimate. Some characters like overlords get the Eternal Life rule: when they die you place a marker on their position and in your command phase on a 5+ that character stands back up with D3 wounds....that sounds super busted on paper, but we've tested this a lot, and it was more of a flavor rule in most cases.

You roll a d6 for each slain model originally in the unit, right? Seems reasonable. Double strength doesn't seem like a bad approach for determining whether a model is perma-killed, but would it perhaps make more sense to tie it to Damage in some way? Maybe basing it off Strength is easier. Can models slain via mortal wounds come back?

Good Points, I'll look into that. Models slain by Mortal Wounds can come back.

Harlequins:
Similar to 9th, but lost most of the combinations that made them busted in 9th.

Can you elaborate? Even in 9th, harlies were walking a fine line between OP and unplayable. It's hard to balance an elite army of T3 with coin flips for saves.

Got a link to the whole thing? It sounds pretty cool.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Got a link to the whole thing? It sounds pretty cool.

Unfortunately not, yet. I don't have a unified, pretty way of showing off everything yet. It's plenty good enough to actually play the system for me and my buddies, but they've seen it grow and evolve from the very beginning so it's easier for them.

What faction would interest you, I can send you a link so you can get a basic idea.

Edit: another big change I've forgot: I've included OC values for every unit in this system because it is about one of the only things in 10th worth including, but I've increased the values on some units similar to WS so you have more design space. In 10th most things are 1-2 (excluding vehicles), in this system a Marine has OC3 for example, a Bladeguard Veteran has OC2.

Objective Secured is still a thing for certain units (not every troop unit in the game gets this, we've tried to look at the context of the faction), but it works different: if a unit has Objective Secured and controls an Objective Marker at the beginning of your turn, that Objective becomes sticky until it is controlled by your opponent.

Ad Mech and Chaos links?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Ad Mech and Chaos links?

I've sent you the links. I don't want to post everything publicly in the thread because it's not pretty yet and still undergoing changes.

I need another input for my homebrew system from you fine peeps:

Up until this point we have been playing completely without Special Characters. The focus was to make the standard system and the standard HQ choices solid enough so you do not need Special Characters and their often unique effects to make your faction work (as is the case in 10th).

But now I have been working to get the datasheets for all the Special Characters ready, because they should still be useful and playable.

This is where my question comes in: how powerful do you think Phoenix Lords should be compared to say, Primarchs? To me they have felt a bit weak in comparison and while I am not sure they should be AS powerful as Primarchs, I feel they should be in the same ballpark.

To me that question is important because I've written the Primarchs and Demon Primarchs and they offer a good benchmark for the uppermost echelon of power to which other Special Characters of similar rank can be measured against.

Tiberias wrote:

This is where my question comes in: how powerful do you think Phoenix Lords should be compared to say, Primarchs?

This is a good question, and not one with a single easy answer.

Some people will tell you that, as demigods with 10,000(ish) years of fighting experience and access to the psychic effects we call exarch powers... phoenix lords should be roughly on par with primarchs. (Primarchs relying a bit more on their physiques than their experience levels, both having access to supernatural/low-key-psychic stunts, etc.) This is a valid take. However, it's also kind of... prideful? Presumptuous? Not sure what word I'm looking for here. Primarchs whole thing is that they're wrapped in layer-upon-layer of plot armor and Marty Stu-ness. We have examples in novels of primarchs nearly getting downed for the count by one or two good hits from things like rockets and thunderhammers, so their durability does have an upper limit. The fact that they are able to pull off the nonsense they do with those limitations in mind is a good demonstration of that plot armor.

So you have this weird disparity between how strong the average primarch is *logically* and how strong they are understood to be because of thematics/vibes. Logically, Guilliman shouldn't be that much more physically threatening or durable than a dreadnaught. Thematically, marines' whole thing is that they're "action heroes" who survive things they shouldn't and win duels they shouldn't, and Guilliman is the most special of the special boys. So then when you try to compare phoenix lords to that... you can easily justify them *logically* being pretty similar in capabilities, but thematically eldar don't have that same Marty Stu protagonist plot armor energy.

tldr; making them primarch-strong is justifiable, but I personally feel like they should be weaker than that.

Phoenix Lords should probably be comparable to either daemon princes or chapter masters. If you make them daemon prince tier, you're leaning into the idea that they're well beyond the capabilities of the average exarch. They almost don't work as squad leaders because they should be so fast, durable (via skill/special rules rather than raw Toughness), and flexible that trying to put their statline in an aspect squad is more trouble than it's worth. Jain Zar should be flinging herself left and right across the table, dueling with monstrous creatures and solo'ing squads of marines. Her banshee pals only want to join in on one of those jobs. Which feels weird in that it seems like phoenix lords should want to at least be in the general vicinity of a squad of their aspect. But on the plus side, this lets you go kind of over-the-top with their abilities. You can give chain the ability to slice up dreadnaughts, give her a super scream that does damage or turns off overwatch in a large area, maybe throw in a ressurrection mechanic, etc.

If you make them chapter masters, you get something closer to what we have in 10th. Stats that are impressive enough that they don't feel like an intentional insult. Special rules to help out their squad. Points costs low enough that you don't have to bend over backwards to include them. The downsides/challenges of this approach are:
A.) Being "merely" as powerful as a mon-keigh with a few centuries of experience and some extra organs can feel like it's kind of low-balling the PLs' abilities.
B.) You have to make them useful enough to their squad that people have a reason to take the phoenix lord rather than just taking more bodies in a squad or another squad of that aspect WHILE ALSO making the phoenix lord feel powerful in their own right; not just a wimp who is really good at supporting their buddies.

Personally, I've found 10th's approach to be pretty good or nearly good. The PLs on their own don't feel terrible at their jobs, but a significant portion of their "design budget" is spent making their squad better at its job or behave differently. Ex: Jain Zar turns banshees into a potentially decent counter-charge unit (or she would if the requirements for countercharging weren't so limiting.) Baharroth gives his hawks move-shoot-move. If you were to take the 10th edition incarnations of the PLs as a base, I think my recommendation would be to drop the +1 to-hit rule they all have and spend that design budget on more/different rules that change how the squad performs.

EDIT: For a shorter, less rambly response, the Avatar of Khaine should on par with a Greater Daemon. A phoenix lord should not hit as hard or be as tough as the Avatar.

Thank you for all the responses so far. I would ask for some input again, this time it is about Harlequins:

Since the murderclowns do not have a lot of unit choices, they need to have other interesting options in my opinion. One of the defining factors of Harlequins for me has always been that they carry some of the weirdest and most unique weapons and that is where my question comes in:

I wanted to make the 4 main choices for Harlequin melee weapons unique, distinct from each other and preferably quite fluffy. And here is what I've come up with:

-Harlequins Blade (standard equipment):
S user, AP -3, Dmg 1
Abilities: each time the bearer fights it can make one additional attack with this weapon

Harlequins Kiss (+5p):
S +1, Ap1, Dmg 2
Abilities: each time an attack is made with this weapon against a non-vehicle unit, on each unmodified wound roll of 6 the target suffers 2 Mortal Wounds and the attack sequence ends.

Harlequins Caress (+10p)
S +2, Ap3, Dmg 1
Abilities: each time an attack is made with this weapon, if the modified Initiative characteristic of the bearer is higher than the highest modified Initiative characteristic of the target unit, improve the Damage characteristic of that attack by 1.

Harlequins Embrace (+5p)
S user, Ap 2, Dmg 1
Abilities: each time an attack is made with this weapon against an enemy unit with more than 5 models remaining, make two hit rolls for each attack instread of one.

Some context: Harlequins have comparatively great WS and Initiative characteristics, which seems to make the caress the obvious choice, but remember enemy unit get bonus Initiative for charging and there are some other (albeit rarer) initiative modifiers in the game.

Fluff influence for the abilities for the iconic 3 weapons:

Kiss: most famous Harlequin weapon that is just a metal tube that unfoils a monofilament wire inside the victim, thus turning their insides into soup: so not that amazing AP, but if an attack is placed correctly (wound roll of 6) it does better damage.

Caress: glove that is sheathed in an energy field that lets the murderclown reach inside its victim and pluck their heart out for example: if the victim is slower, the murderclown can reach and hit a more lethal spot (comparing initiative could be subsituted with weapon skill here)

Embrace: monofilament net that pulls itself tight after being trown over the victim: is more effective if multiple enemies are cought, so it does more attacks against bigger units.

Edit:
Concerning internal balance of those weapons:
-kiss get's better the tougher the target cause you don't care much for Toughness when you can fish for mortals

-caress is probably the best overall choice, hence why it's more expensive (maybe its better to change the comparison to Weapon Skill since there are more units with equal Weapon Skill in the game than there are one with equal or higher initiative....discounting the bonus initiative for charging for a sec)

-embrance: obviously the best choice against horde units.

I really like what you've got for the harlequin weapons. These are a fluffy and well-considered take. A few thoughts:

* Blades are probably fine as-is as the cheap choice. Especially if your version of harlies has Furious Charge or similar. If you wanted to keep the blades from feeling like the "cheap" option though, consider buffing the invuln saves of blade wielders in melee to represent ye olde Parry rules. Something like re-rolling saves of 1 for blade wielders in melee or even reducing the Attacks of models in btb with them if you want to get complicated with it. It turns your blade guys into tanks for the rest of the squad rather than ablative wounds.

* Kiss VS Caress: What you have probably works reasonably well. The caress is absolutely better as most things that can potentially match harlies' initaitive are generally going to be things like space elves and slaaneshi daemons that are probably W1 anyway. But that higher points cost might be all you need. A unit of 5 that spams caresses is going to be 25 points more expensive than a kiss squad and 50 more expensive than a blade squad. So you're paying a premium for the extra lethality. That's probably sufficient to make people want to sprinkle caresses in rather than spamming them.

That said, for your consideration, my personal take on the kiss and caress has always been that the caress is specialized in bypassing defenses (shapeable power field) while the kiss is kind of meh at it but hurts really bad when it lands a hit. What I've pitched in the past is something like:

Kiss: S3, AP-1, extra good damage stat. Like, D3 or Dd6 on to-wound rolls of 6.

Caress: S4, AP-3, D1, mortal wounds on to-wound rolls of 6. (So a better all-rounder than the kiss especially against armored infantry, but way less good at making short work of monsters and characters. Turns the kiss into more of a specialist weapon than a generalist one, which is admittedly probably a bit less fluffy.)

* Your embrace rule looks great. If you *did* want to do something different, consider something like:
S4,AP0, D1, bonus attacks based on models in enemy unit, always swing at init 10. This turns it into a more defensive choice to help with horde matchups. You charged in and chopped up a bunch of hormagaunts? Great. But you're screwed when the enemy charges you and swings first. But by taking at least a couple of embraces, you can pre-emptively kill a bunch of poorly armored attackers before they swing, thus reducing their overall incoming attacks. Fluff being that the clown sees the attackers coming, throws out a net of anime wires, and then pulls them taught as the enemy approaches.

To reiterate, I think your proposal is perfectly good as-is. I'm just tossing out some pet alternatives.

Thanks for the input so far, it helps a great deal.

I've taken to re-write how you get your canticles for admech because the system in 8th and 9th to me always lacked player agency. You either selected your canticle, but could only select each one once, or your just randomly rolled for them and hoped you get your desired result.

My idea works like this: at the beginning of the battle round you select a canticle to be incanted and roll one D6: on a roll of 4+ the canticle is active for that battleround.

Now, the required roll changes depending on how many characters with the tech priest keyword you have on the battlefield:
1 Techpriest: 3+
2 Techpriests: 2+
3 or more Techpriests: 2+ and you can re-roll results of 1

Canticles can be selected multiple times, so for example you can attempt to incant Shroudpsalm in all 5 battle rounds, but you get a -1 on your roll for each time that canticle has been successfully incanted this game.

So for example if you managed to get Shroudpsalm in the first battle round, Benediction of the Omnissiah in the second battle round and then attempted to get Shroudpsalm again in your third battle round, you would get a -1 on your roll.

This I hope both increases player agency and also plays into list building -> how many tech priests do I really want to bring? Is my strategy flexible enough so that I'm probably going to pick many different canticles? Am I going to need one multiple times?

There are also obviously some warlord traits that interact with this rule, like High Priest of the Omnissiah which makes that tech priest count as two for the purposes of the Canticles of the Omnissiah Rule.

Edit: an unmodified roll of 6 is always successful btw when your roll whether you successfully incant your canticle.