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.
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)
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.
"'players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."
This is an actual rule in the actual rulebook. Quit whining about how you can imagine someone's army touching you in a bad place and play by the actual rules.
Freelance Ontologist
When people ask, "What's the point in understanding everything?" they've just disqualified themselves from using questions and should disappear in a puff of paradox. But they don't understand and just continue existing, which are also their only two strategies for life.
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.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2017/11/30 15:27:54
Subject: The 8ed Heresy Project - UPDATE 19/10 - All books updated!
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/30 22:11:08
2017/12/01 09:04:02
Subject: The 8ed Heresy Project - UPDATE 19/10 - All books updated!
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"?
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.
2017/12/28 21:29:45
Subject: The 8ed Heresy Project - UPDATE 19/10 - All books updated!
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/29 01:40:53
2017/12/29 17:07:16
Subject: The 8ed Heresy Project - UPDATE 19/10 - All books updated!
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.
2017/12/29 19:07:40
Subject: The 8ed Heresy Project - UPDATE 19/10 - All books updated!
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
2017/12/30 04:44:23
Subject: The 8ed Heresy Project - UPDATE 19/10 - All books updated!
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.
2017/12/30 06:58:06
Subject: The 8ed Heresy Project - UPDATE 19/10 - All books updated!
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:
Spoiler:
Thunderbolt/Lightning Analysis
7ed 40k
Thunderbolt As well as the basic 2 x TL Autocannon and a TL Lascannon , options were: 4 x Hellstrike Missiles S8 AP3 Ordnance 1, One Use Only 6 x Skystrike Missiles S7 AP3 Heavy 1, Air-to-Air, Heatseeker, One use Only 6 x Tactical Bombs
Lightning As well as the basic TL Lascannons (and on a regular non-Primaris lightning, an autocannon) options were: 4/6 x Hellstrike Missiles As above 6 x Skystrike Missiles As Above 4/6 x Tactical Bombs As Above 4 x Hellfury Missiles S4 AP5 Heavy 1, Large Blast, Ignores Cover, One Use Only
The Lightning is flimsier, but more versatile, and while both can do ground-attack, the Lightning can be outfitted better for it while the Thunderbolt is pretty much vehicle/aircraft based.
7ed 30k
Thunderbolt As well as the basic 2 x TL Autocannon and a TL Lascannon , options were: 4 x Hellstrike Missiles As Above 4 x Sunfury Missiles S6 AP3 Heavy 1, Large Blast, Gets Hot, Blind, One Use Only 4 x Kinetic Piercer Missiles S6 AP2 Heavy 1, Armourbane, Heatseeker, One Use Only
Lightning As well as the basic TL Lascannons, options were three hardpoints, each of which could have twin autocannon, twin multi-laser, twin missile launcher (with Krak/Frag/Rad) or: 2 x Sunfury Missiles As Above 2 x Kraken Penetrators S8 AP1, Heavy 1, Armourbane, One Use Only 1 x Phosphex Bomb Cluster (The usual fun, One Use Only) 2 x Electromagnetic Storm Charges (Large Blast Haywire weapons, One Use Only)
Similar roles as before, but more heavily armed. The basic anti-troop missile is better. Neither can take tactical bombs. Both can have ground-tracking auguries and be optimised for ground-attack, but the Lightning is dedicated to this (no anti-air options) and can also take Tank Hunters. Both have Armourbane missiles, but the Thunderbolt ones are more optimised against lighter vehicles and flyers. It’s also worth mentioning that the Lightning is considered OP for it’s ability to take 4/6 Krakens and completely destroy any vehicle on the turn it comes in. All missiles are one-use, which is balanced by the option to take missile launchers on the lightning which are multi-use.
8ed 40k
Thunderbolt As well as the basic 2 x TL Autocannon and a TL Lascannon , options were: 4 x Hellstrike Missiles Heavy 1 S8 AP-2 DD6 Roll two dice for Damage and pick the highest (like Melta) 6 x Skystrike Missiles Heavy 1 S7 AP-2 DD3 +1 to Hit against FLY, -1 against everything else 6 x Tactical Bombs
Lightning As well as the basic TL Lascannons (and on a regular non-Primaris lightning, an autocannon) options were: 4/6 x Hellstrike Missiles As above 6 x Skystrike Missiles As Above 4/6 x Tactical Bombs 4 x Hellfury Missiles Heavy 2D6 S4 AP0 D1
The 8ed 40k rules are a direct copy-over of the 7ed 40k rules with the notable exception that all missiles are now unlimited use! This is already WAY better, since Hellstrike are better in 8ed (having a special rule which is basically permanent melta). I’m not sure if this is a typo, but it hasn’t been FAQ’d!
So, putting in the correct OPTIONS to represent the vehicles is an easy change, and we already have phosphex bombs, and electrostatic charges and sunfury missiles are an easy thing to write up. The big questions are what should Kinetic Piercer/Kraken Penetrators do, and what should be one-use?
Hellstrike missiles are already much better, and we really don’t want a situation where a 6-missile Lightning can reliably blow up any enemy unit EVERY turn, so if we make Krakens better than current Hellstrikes (say, AP-4), I think we have to adopt a one-use missile policy (Kinetic piercers could be as Skystrikes, or as ‘regular’ Hellstrikes with the FLY rules).
Alternatively, if we want to keep the unlimited missiles, I think Hellstrike profile should basically just be used to represent Kraken penetrators (and even THAT might be too powerful) and then Skystrikes become Kinetic Piercers, maybe with the re-roll to their D3 damage to represent the old Armourbane.
We should also bear in mind that Flyers are generally easier to hit now, and that they hit on a 4+ basic because all their weapons are Heavy. Ground-tracking Auguries still boost this to 3+ if needed, but that’s still worse than the 2+ vs ground targets Lightnings used to get (fething OP Lightnings!!).
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?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/01 21:17:58
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
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/01 22:00:33
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)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/01 22:59:55
2018/01/02 15:12:43
Subject: The 8ed Heresy Project - UPDATE 19/10 - All books updated!
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 BRBRAW.
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'
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/01/05 09:12:01
2018/01/07 12:40:59
Subject: The 8ed Heresy Project - UPDATE 19/10 - All books updated!
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!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/07 12:47:27
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
2018/01/08 16:19:39
Subject: The 8ed Heresy Project - UPDATE 19/10 - All books updated!
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...?
This message was edited 9 times. Last update was at 2018/01/08 16:44:31
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
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.
2018/01/08 17:04:28
Subject: The 8ed Heresy Project - UPDATE 19/10 - All books updated!
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).
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
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/01/08 17:23:43
2018/01/08 21:40:54
Subject: The 8ed Heresy Project - UPDATE 19/10 - All books updated!
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 40kRG 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
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/08 21:43:07
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.
