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.

Hi Guys,

First off, not sure if this is the right place, but I'm thinking of 'creating' new character rules for my converted Grey Knight Contemptor Dreadnought, giving him a name and back-story so i can square the cost, time and effort with something that's a little more special on the table-top. If this is the wrong place, please kick me in the right direction, and I'll shift...

If this is the right place, here goes...

The basic background for this guy is that he was an exceptional DK pilot who was almost killed putting ceramite boot to deamonic rear-end (specifically, taking on three greater daemons in single combat, killing them(and taking a mortal wound) before using the DK personal teleporter to shunt back to the battle-barge in orbit (extreme distance, i know, but that's the point), and he had to get home somehow...)

Because of the dedicated service (he's a GK) and cus he would die otherwise, he was put into a dreadnought suit to keep him alive (and kicking daemon a$$) and sent back into the fight once more.

His rules ( this is the bit i need some feedback on; is it beardy (i dont want to be too beardy, but a few wisps of beardiness are fine), would you let him into a normal game, etc..)

Standard Ven-dred profile (so ws5,bs5,s6,12-12-10,i4*,a2)

WARGEAR: Assault Cannon, The Doomsword, Kelsier’s Wrath, Psybolt Ammunition, Smoke Launchers.
The Doomsword: The doomsword is a Dreadnought Close Combat weapon, which also uses the rules for a Nemesis Great Sword.
Kelsier’s Wrath: The left vambrace of Kelsier’s armour incorporates a twin-linked heavy bolter.
SPECIAL RULES: The Aegis, Advanced Aegis, Preferred enemy (Daemons), Psychic Pilot, Venerable

*Pushing his boundaries: If Kelsier’s Wrath is fired in the shooting phase, make an initiative test at the beginning of the subsequent combat phase. If failed, for this round of combat Jeff strikes at I1.

PSYCHIC POWERS: Dark Excommunication, Fortitude

Basically it's merging the rules for a ven-dread and a dreadknight. the model has a doomsword (and left wrist) from the DK kit. I was just going to incorporate a storm bolter for grey-knighty-ness, but it looked so piddly and useless compared to the rest of him, so i upgraded him to a heavy bolter (hence a bump in points and the Pushing His Boundaries rule - there'll be fluff about him pushing the DK suit further than most, but the rule's mainly there to offset the increased fire-power a little). I'll have to get some decent pics of the model so far (pretty much built, needs some tweaks and then painting) and upload them...

His points come in at 220, which is the basic Ven-dread points costs, with the upgrades pointed as per standard vehicle upgrades (the points for the TLHB are taken from Razorback-Rhino = cost), the standard DK points for the sword, and a premium for creating my own rules.

He takes up an Elites slot (as per the ven-dread profile)

I think that covers everything...any thoughts?

One Dreadknight. Killing three Greater Daemons in close combat.

The rules look reasonable, but the fluff could be toned down a tad.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
One Dreadknight. Killing three Greater Daemons in close combat.

The rules look reasonable, but the fluff could be toned down a tad.

Looks like he's just taking tips from the GK fluff that's already out there.

So his name is Jeff?

 Griddlelol wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
One Dreadknight. Killing three Greater Daemons in close combat.

The rules look reasonable, but the fluff could be toned down a tad.

Looks like he's just taking tips from the GK fluff that's already out there.

Are you saying the GK fluff that's already there doesn't need to be toned down a tad?

WillyRapier wrote:

The Doomsword: The doomsword is a Nemesis Great Sword, which counts as a Dreadnought Close Combat weapon.

Why would it be a Nemesis Great Sword that counts as a Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon?

Those are two distinct weapons. That would be like saying "this plasma pistol counts as a heavy bolter". If it's one or the other, say that only.

I think he means it is a DCCW which gets the re-rolls of a NGS

^ Or it could refer to the appearance of the weapon. i think he meant it was a normal DCCW.

We shall have to wait for him to elaborate then. I bet one internet dollar on my view. I'm a gambling man.

Motyak wins, quite right. I'd pay up the dollar, but i'm a Brit, and the postage costs make it prohibitive

Almarine wrote:So his name is Jeff?

err...my bad. No, at the moment (i keep changing my mind...names is important, and hard to come by) He's Contemptor-Knight Leoben Kelsier. I called him Jeff for a while before i came up with anything else. (by the same token, i have a TerrorGhiest named 'Betty' and in my proposed Lizardmen army, two salamanders named 'Sally' and 'Amander'. They need names, and i cant think of good ones, so i think of ones that make my inner-child titter in amusement for a second...

DarknessEternal wrote:Why would it be a Nemesis Great Sword that counts as a Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon?

the reason it's a nemesis great sword that's also a DCC is because *drum roll, please* it's a Nemesis Great Sword. that happens to be a combat weapon...and is being carried around and used by a dreadnought.
(I could claim that I'm taking a tip from the rulebook, and mixing rules up because i want to be confusing, but i dont)

DarknessEternal wrote:Those are two distinct weapons. That would be like saying "this plasma pistol counts as a heavy bolter". If it's one or the other, say that only.

Not quite. At least there's a reason why a sword carried by a dreadnought might be a DCCW...it just so happens the sword's special rules already appear, and i didn't feel the need to reiterate them twice (look at the falchions rule for instances where reiterating a rule incorrectly causes issues that require an FAQ.

Thanks muchly for the comments, though, guys. in terms of the fluff, i know it's OTT, but so is the rest of the Matt Ward-ian GK fluff - in that, i am trying to fit in. would two greater daemons make it sit more comfortably with you?

You still haven't made it clear what the rules of that weapon are supposed to be.

Just write down it's stats without referring to anything else like any other melee weapon in 6th edition.

perhaps if i understood what your confusion with the rules it, your request would make more sense.

Nemesis Great Sword: re-roll hit, wound, and ap in cc [p54, C:GK 2011]
DCCW: 2xS, AP2, Melee [p60, BRB]

where is the confusion? (or rather, what is unclear?) both apply, neither contradict. this is like saying "why combine Infantry and Jump rules from the BRB. Write a Jump Infantry rule as well."

I think the problem is that it's currently a Nemesis Great Sword that counts as a DCCW. Anything that counts as something else is that, and that only. As such, your NGS does not get the rules of an NGS, as it's a DCCW.

WillyRapier wrote:
perhaps if i understood what your confusion with the rules it, your request would make more sense.

Nemesis Great Sword: re-roll hit, wound, and ap in cc [p54, C:GK 2011]
DCCW: 2xS, AP2, Melee [p60, BRB]

where is the confusion? (or rather, what is unclear?) both apply, neither contradict. this is like saying "why combine Infantry and Jump rules from the BRB. Write a Jump Infantry rule as well."

Because infantry and jump are rules, and nemesis great sword and DCCW are items the model has. Just say it's a DCCW that re-rolls to hit, wound, and ap in CC and don't reference the nemesis great sword at all. A DCCW doesn't imply it's a fist, so still fluffing it out as a sword is no big deal.

Mind you, this is semantics/ways to clarify only, since it's for a proposed/non official rule it seems a bit silly

good point - edited above. My apologies to DarknessEternal

I still maintain writing out the full rule is unnecessary, but AlmightyWalrus makes a good point; "counts as" was badly worded

The Doomsword S: User x2 AP: 2 Special: Melee, Doomsword

Doomsword: Attacks with this weapon re-roll all hit and wound rolls in close combat.

Now it doesn't require you to say it's anything else. Rules are for clarity, not brevity. You're current wording still tells it two weapons at the same time.

Y'know what? fine, have it your way. It's S:User *2 AP2 Melee weapon that re-rolls failed To Hit, To Would and armour penetration rolls in close combat.

(Which when you start looking at the existing rules, is a combination of the DCCW and NGS rules, which is what i said, and they still don't contradict each other. You're reading a pro...forget it, as Target says, it's kinda stupid to argue semantics for non-official rules. Nobody in other forums, in my local store, or my gaming group had an issue with the wording, but I guess that's the problem with opening it up to the facelessness of the Internet.)

Other than the fact that I apparently cant write rules for toffee, does anyone have anything constructive to add?

One suggestion from another forum was to tweak the TLHB rules, making it a "heavy storm bolter" with a profile: "R24, S5, AP4, Heavy 2". This brings the built-in weapon down to a more standard 24", rather than 36", and removes the twin-linking bringing the gun in line with the assault cannon on the other arm. I'm inclined to agree, until i get some play-tests in with him and see how he runs on the board.

 Griddlelol wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
One Dreadknight. Killing three Greater Daemons in close combat.

The rules look reasonable, but the fluff could be toned down a tad.

Looks like he's just taking tips from the GK fluff that's already out there.

Damn you Matt Ward! -shakes fist-

Just kidding I'm a GK sympathizer. I like the idea, and the thought you've put into it. Can't say much about fairness though, as I do play GK

WillyRapier wrote:

(Which when you start looking at the existing rules, is a combination of the DCCW and NGS rules, which is what i said, and they still don't contradict each other.

If you don't understand how that contradicts itself, perhaps you shouldn't be inventing rules.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
If you don't understand how that contradicts itself, perhaps you shouldn't be inventing rules.

And if you cant explain the specific contradiction, maybe you should keep your opinion to yourself.

DCCW Weapon Rule modifies strength, and ap
NDS Weapon Rule gives re-rolls to failed hit, wound, and ap rolls

How do they interfere with each other? In fact, don't bother answering. Your point has been noted, I give in because I cant be arsed to argue with one guy who decides that he wont understand. I thank you for the constructive side of our discussion, but it's done. Move on. Have a nice day.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
One Dreadknight. Killing three Greater Daemons in close combat.

The rules look reasonable, but the fluff could be toned down a tad.

You could be right on this one...how about he was leading a squadron/team of 'knights, they killed three daemons, and he was the only survivor. still fluffy, but (slightly) more believably fluffy..?

and as Griddlelol mentions, it's not as bad as some of the fluff out there...at least he didn't singlehandedly stroll into the eye of terror, shove his fist down some daemons throat, and rip the label off its underpants...now there's a thought...

WillyRapier wrote:

DCCW Weapon Rule modifies strength, and ap
NDS Weapon Rule gives re-rolls to failed hit, wound, and ap rolls

Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon is Strength UserX2 AP2.
Nemesis Great Sword is Strength User AP 3 and rerolls hit and wounds.

So your Nemesis Great Sword Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon is simultaneously Strength User and UserX2 and AP 2 and 3.

woohoo, five posts after you complain, you finally state the problem.

If you cant make yourself clear, maybe you shouldn't be commenting on others being able to do the same.

do you not know how modifier's work? By the argument you just put forward, every CC weapon with a modifier suffer's the same problem. All CC weapons use the strength of their user, unless a modifier is applied. If this wasn't the case, what is the modifier modifying?

Now, as for the AP, I'll give you that one, as on that you make a good point. shame you couldn't have made it five posts ago (or four, when i actually asked...)

Darkness is just being pedantic. Everyone else understood what you meant.

I think he's pretty cool. I'm guessing you meant for pushing the boundaries to apply when both the AC and HB are fired? The current wording means that even if the AC wasn't fired, if the HB was then you'd need to make an init. test.

Aside from that, cool guy, pretty fluffy (go with the squadron of 'knights idea ), I'd happily play against it.

That special rule is intended only for when the 'Heavy Storm Bolter' (HSB) is fired, and he assaults in the same turn. The AC is a viable option for the dreadnought, and I'm paying the points for it as normal. The combination of big stabby sword and HSB (on the same hand, no less) is where I'm departing from the dreadnought options, so it's those that I'm adding a degree of weakness too, to mitigate the potentially overpowered weaponry.

The not-so-fluffy reasoning behind it is that as the HB is build into the vambrace, there'd be a degree of recoil that might throw off the sword, hence the initiative test and the 33% chance of going I1. I don't expect to be making the test too often. A dreadnought stomping up to a unit, firing both an AC and HB with psybolt ammunition, will probably mince most infantry put in front of it, and deny the charge due to the new allocation rules. It's more likely I'd hold back on firing the HB, so i wouldnt make the test.

I like the idea of making it both guns, though, mainly because if i go up against a tank, I'd want to give it both (ok...all eight ) barrels and kill it, then assault the squishy stuff inside (if there is any) in the assault phase.

i think It's something that will need some playtesting to work out, which is the next stage after getting rules opinions Thanks for the idea, and the comments.

My thinking behind it was if the AC was destroyed then the HSB would still force the Int. test. I was still thinking it was meant to only activate when both were fired though.

Yes, playtest it, see how well it works, then make revisions.