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.

Message removed (noticed delay message)

Hey guys, well since its been bumped I might as well come out of hiding (was hoping this would slip under the radar so I could apologise and release at the same time).

Been a mixture of a few real-life issues and underestimating just how long those "finishing touches" take! It's been time well spent though as I keep picking up on conflicts and tweaking a few ideas. Hopefully with you Sunday if not a touch sooner.

Well, I've been staring at the "finished" article for a while but my drawings certainly aren't going to get magically better the harder I stare. Best thing to do now is bite the bullet and throw it out to the wolves

Have fun and let me know what you think. In particular points costings: I think I've taken "throwing dice to represent contrived situations by my myself" about as far as I can.

 disty wrote:

 Orkimedes1000 wrote:

HRUD/Gretchin/Guardsman
WS: 3/2/3
BS: 3/3/3
S: 2/2/3
T: 2/2/3
W: 1/1/1
I: 3/2/3
A: 1/1/1
Ld: 8/5/7
Sv: 6++/-/5+
Pts: 5/3/5

Unit size: 10-30


"Assault": make it assault 2. then it'd be virtually the same as a shotgun. + read a story featuring the Hrud, it claimed (vague-ish) that the Hrud had basic rifles that fired many rounds. by being assault - or assault 1 it is worse than s shotgun (by 1 shot) it'd make your Hrud basic infantry more worthwhile to actually field them. kind of a cheap "perk" if you take them over some other more elite/expensively equipped units. the way they are with that example profile looks like a grot with slightly better weapons and profile and 2pts more in cost for basic infantry with an INv save at 5 points per basic trooper seems too cheap in points. STR/T 2 isn't going to do much either. at STR 3 ranged 12" AP- Assault 1 also means they probably wont actually shoot anything maybe replace "rifle" on these infantry with close combat weapons and a pistol or increase range to 18" and make it assault 2, keeping it Str 3. just an idea.

Hi Orkimedes, thanks for posting! I'm not quite sure what you're suggesting, are they too cheap in their current form or just a bit useless? I could improve them and then indeed they'd come with a larger price tag, but I ideally see them as cheap, rubbish and somewhat resilient. Their options however can make them a very flexible and deadly unit, as well as a force multiplier, in the hands of a competent commander.

It should be noted that I'm after a certain uniqueness in the stat line; I'd rather they had a different feel to other core troops. I've added a Guardsman to your example as way of comparison, I think I've priced them right about 5pts but we shall see; come the 7th I hope it all becomes apparent

i simply mean't (apologies for long winded explanation) they are a bit weak as line infantry. to make them more useful make their assault weapons assault 2. (then their weapons are virtually the same as a shotgun statwise)

i agree if they were improved the points cost might change. to counter the extra benefit over a similar unit without [said rules?]. i hope to read the finished result as i have alway's been a fan of alternate Xenos in wh40k


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 disty wrote:
Hi all,

So as the title suggests I'm intending to release my Fandex on the 7th of April; a project I've been working on (or more aptly “off”) for the past two years.

I can imagine some of you are already shouting at your monitors, “why post now if it’s still two weeks away?” “Why have you not told us anything about this Fandex? You know we despise the GW approach towards marketing!” I’m afraid all I can offer you is my sincerest apologies. The ‘dex is completely drafted but is in need of formatting, revising and if there’s time, some of my horrific hand drawn art (The whole thing looks less convincing without art).

My hope for this thread (prior to the 7th) is thus:

1) To give myself a deadline. If I've set a target then it’s far more likely it’ll get finished as I have an aversion to breaking them.
2) Drum up some interest! I couldn't think of anything worse than just releasing it to a wall of silence. Hopefully with people already involved someone will at least say “We waited for that? It’s utterly horrible. I need to find better ways to procrastinate!”
3) If I have any last minute questions hopefully there’ll be someone capable of answering them.

So, how should I involve you? Well, since you’re not aware of the name of the Fandex, nor the Chapter/Craftworld/Regiment /Cult/Order/Clan/Species/Detachment/Dynasty/Civilisation/ Caste/Fleet/Squats its contents cover, we can play a game!

Ask a question or take a guess at either name and I’ll answer with Yes/No/Maybe (If you want to ask other questions not connected to the name game I’ll obviously answer in full). Winners will get a mention in the ‘dex or possibly have their name morphed into a character/item for the future. High levels of commitment may also be rewarded.

I should point out the ‘dex has been written for 5e and will be released that way; I’ll tidy it up for 6th (including adding some units I've got in mind and story progression) after a few months.
Without further ado, let the guessing/abuse/silence commence!

Cheers,

Disty

Ok so i have read 50% and skimmed through another 15% but what i have seen thus far is pretty awesome [not much i have issue with at present time]. one thing blared out at me while reading it. Super Metroid. this army seems almost written as a metroid come 40k xenos race handbook. i am by no means opposed to such, i forsee this army being very colourful and you have done a mighty fine explanation of a minor or next to unknown race/faction within 40k lore. [even if this is just my perception of the moment]

 Orkimedes1000 wrote:


Ok so i have read 50% and skimmed through another 15% but what i have seen thus far is pretty awesome [not much i have issue with at present time]. one thing blared out at me while reading it. Super Metroid. this army seems almost written as a metroid come 40k xenos race handbook. i am by no means opposed to such, i forsee this army being very colourful and you have done a mighty fine explanation of a minor or next to unknown race/faction within 40k lore. [even if this is just my perception of the moment]

Glad you've enjoyed it so far! I'm afraid I'll have to plead ignorance to the Super Metroid vibe as I never owned a SNES (Sacrilege I know but Amiga 500 for life!). I'm aware it's a really well-loved and respected title though so I'll happily take such comparisons

Good work thus far. 136 pages is allot!

Wish I could see it. My internet security tells me its bugged and when I say open anyway it errors out. Will try to open it on my iPad later and see what its all about!

KOVAV wrote:Good work thus far. 136 pages is allot!

Plenty to get through, so get cracking

Thatguyhsagun wrote:Wish I could see it. My internet security tells me its bugged and when I say open anyway it errors out. Will try to open it on my iPad later and see what its all about!

Oh dear, that's not good. Did you manage to get it working?

just read all 135 pages (136 was blank lol) and lived every bit of it! Bit disappointed I let my men down though... But things happen and sacrifices have to be made. Unfortunately I was one of them

Thatguyhsagun wrote:
just read all 135 pages (136 was blank lol) and lived every bit of it! Bit disappointed I let my men down though... But things happen and sacrifices have to be made. Unfortunately I was one of them

That was some quick reading, good work! Hah, 136 is indeed blank, it's mostly a throw-back from when I was transporting drafts to and from work in my bag, acting as a dirt shield and somewhere to scribble additional notes

Life in the Imperial Guard: it's never easy but that's how we like it

 disty wrote:

Thatguyhsagun wrote:
just read all 135 pages (136 was blank lol) and lived every bit of it! Bit disappointed I let my men down though... But things happen and sacrifices have to be made. Unfortunately I was one of them

That was some quick reading, good work! Hah, 136 is indeed blank, it's mostly a throwover from when I was transforting drafts to and from work in my bag, acting as a dirt shield and somewhere to scribble additional notes

Life in the Imperial Guard: it's never easy but that's how we like it

It is indeed. And just imagine the Catacheans home-planet. I bet its even worse!

I am really, really enjoying what I have read so far. Most fandexes are very, very one dimensional. This has several things going on, with the tamed animals, the umbra, the Mojjom tree and even some actual machinery.

I particularly like the pheromone tracers.

I skimmed it. Was impressed enough that I'm going to go back over it in detail. We need more fandexes like this man, I'd happily play against it

Dast wrote:I am really, really enjoying what I have read so far. Most fandexes are very, very one dimensional. This has several things going on, with the tamed animals, the umbra, the Mojjom tree and even some actual machinery.

I particularly like the pheromone tracers.

I'm glad your enjoying it! I tried to build up something a bit varied but also rooted in working necessity; everything should have a purpose!

Dakkamite wrote:I skimmed it. Was impressed enough that I'm going to go back over it in detail. We need more fandexes like this man, I'd happily play against it

Excellent news

If you could both post some feedback when you've sieved through in detail I'd be very appreciative as I'm not getting a lot of other comments :(

Hello again,

I have given the whole thing a read through. I really, really like it. The Mojom tree is a fantastic idea, the creatures they use are all nice and different and are all well done.

You have found a niche that really makes them feel different from every other 40k faction.

I am not really able to offer much rules balance advice as I haven't played with them, but conceptually the rules are all nice and pretty.

Things I would change:
-Right at the begining the fight between whats his name and the old ones in order to escape. I woul prefer if this bit, instead of being written in "normal" mode was written in a highly legendary and epic way. This would give people the ability to choose to intereret it as just a legend, or as an actual event, depending on their choice.
Once he gets closer to the present and fighting antara and necrons I thought it got much, much better.

Also, where do you come up with the names? They are vaguely lovecraftian, but are pronouncable (I think, I haven't actually tried but reading them I think they are pronouncable.)

Anyway, It was a very good read. Hope this feedback helps,

Dast

Dast wrote:
Hello again,

I have given the whole thing a read through. I really, really like it. The Mojom tree is a fantastic idea, the creatures they use are all nice and different and are all well done.

You have found a niche that really makes them feel different from every other 40k faction.

Hey Dast, thanks for the reply! Glad you liked it!

Dast wrote:
I am not really able to offer much rules balance advice as I haven't played with them, but conceptually the rules are all nice and pretty.

I'm very much in the same boat, not had a whole lot of time for play testing. If you've got a spare few minutes though I'd appreciate it if you tried to build the most unbalanced army list you could, really try and break the 'dex. I've made several but there's bound to be unintentional combinations that I've missed.

Dast wrote:
Things I would change:
-Right at the begining the fight between whats his name and the old ones in order to escape. I woul prefer if this bit, instead of being written in "normal" mode was written in a highly legendary and epic way. This would give people the ability to choose to intereret it as just a legend, or as an actual event, depending on their choice.
Once he gets closer to the present and fighting antara and necrons I thought it got much, much better.

I think I see what you mean, I'm not intending to go over and re-do the fluff as a priority (although every time I glance at it I see something wrong!) but when I do I'll send you a PM for ideas and direction.

Dast wrote:
Also, where do you come up with the names? They are vaguely lovecraftian, but are pronouncable (I think, I haven't actually tried but reading them I think they are pronouncable.)

Any names in particular? The names of the Hrud are mostly just made up by myself scribbling down jumbled letters, prefixes and suffixes until I see something I like. The only directly lovecraftian reference is the Cthacean (amalgamation of Cthulu and Crustacean). There's loads of amalgamations and obscure pop culture references laced through it though, bonus points if people can spot them

Dast wrote:
Anyway, It was a very good read. Hope this feedback helps

All feedback helps, even one word replies will spur me on knowing that someone's going to read it!

Currently I'm slowly adjusting a few rules to bring them in line with 6e whilst creating three new units. I'm having a little difficulty in creating decent and unique warlord traits so any ideas would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers,

disty

Need help writing fluff? I can do fluff for you.

Hi Kain, thanks for the post.

That's a very kind offer. The fluff has already been fleshed out but feel free to submit revisions and alternatives. You could even create background stories about other notable Cerberons and their migratory rampages! Something I intend to do some distance in the future is to create backgrounds and a timeline of famous battles and events based upon table top outcomes.

 disty wrote:

I'm having a little difficulty in creating decent and unique warlord traits so any ideas would be greatly appreciated.

So I had a little think over the weekend and have drafted a list of 8 possible warlord traits for your scrutiny.

1) “Tomorrow’s Harvest” More than one Mojjom fruit can be consumed per turn per unit.
2) “From the smallest ant to the tallest tree” – Swarms and fauna are no longer vulnerable to blasts and templates.
3) “Blood brothers” – Allies chosen from Codex: Chaos Demons and Codex: Chaos Space Marines are considered battle brothers instead of Desperate allies.
4) “By example” – When an enemy character is slain by the warlord in a duel, all units within 12” gain fearless until the beginning of the next game turn.
5) “Vay Jaakell” – One unit gains infiltrate
6) “Vay Quomb” – The warlord and any unit he’s joined with have the poisoned (4+) special rule to their close combat attacks. Models already with poisoned attacks gain Poisoned (2+)
7) “Vay Velotck” – The warlord and any unit he’s joined with gain the Monster hunter special rule. The Warlord gains Eternal warrior.
8) “Vay Pjorous” – The warlord may choose to have enemy models arriving via outflank re-roll which table edge they arrive from. Add +1 when rolling to penetrate fortifications with an Av value.

Let me know what you think. If anyone has additional traits please share them (the fluffier the better!) and in due course we'll have a poll to decide which 6 should make the cut.

Cheers,

disty

Just give me a bit to look over what you have and I can put out some Blurbs and short stories for you.

 disty wrote:
Hi Kain, thanks for the post.

That's a very kind offer. The fluff has already been fleshed out but feel free to submit revisions and alternatives. You could even create background stories about other notable Cerberons and their migratory rampages! Something I intend to do some distance in the future is to create backgrounds and a timeline of famous battles and events based upon table top outcomes.

 disty wrote:

I'm having a little difficulty in creating decent and unique warlord traits so any ideas would be greatly appreciated.

So I had a little think over the weekend and have drafted a list of 8 possible warlord traits for your scrutiny.

1) “Tomorrow’s Harvest” More than one Mojjom fruit can be consumed per turn per unit.
2) “From the smallest ant to the tallest tree” – Swarms and fauna are no longer vulnerable to blasts and templates.
3) “Blood brothers” – Allies chosen from Codex: Chaos Demons and Codex: Chaos Space Marines are considered battle brothers instead of Desperate allies.
4) “By example” – When an enemy character is slain by the warlord in a duel, all units within 12” gain fearless until the beginning of the next game turn.
5) “Vay Jaakell” – One unit gains infiltrate
6) “Vay Quomb” – The warlord and any unit he’s joined with have the poisoned (4+) special rule to their close combat attacks. Models already with poisoned attacks gain Poisoned (2+)
7) “Vay Velotck” – The warlord and any unit he’s joined with gain the Monster hunter special rule. The Warlord gains Eternal warrior.
8) “Vay Pjorous” – The warlord may choose to have enemy models arriving via outflank re-roll which table edge they arrive from. Add +1 when rolling to penetrate fortifications with an Av value.

Let me know what you think. If anyone has additional traits please share them (the fluffier the better!) and in due course we'll have a poll to decide which 6 should make the cut.

Cheers,

disty

I haven't had the chance to read through it as much as I'd like, but here are my quick opinions on your suggestions:
1. I can't remember exactly what this does, but I like that it's unique.
2. I like how this changes the dynamic of your army. I think it may be a little too strong though for a warlord trait. Maybe making it a 12" bubble would do the trick?
3. Not a huge fan of this. Although it is very fluffy, it dramatically changes the structure of your army and can be totally worthless if you happened to not take them as allies.
4. This seems pretty good, maybe make it a bit stronger though? The rulebook has a warlord trait that grants victory points if you win a duel, which is stronger than this.
5. I'd bump it to D3 units to make it the same as the CSM trait (pretty sure it's them.) Plus infiltrate isn't as strong as it used to be.
6. Incredibly strong trait, this really needs to be toned down. My suggestion is to make it only the warlord. I like adding poison though, I think it suits the army very well.
7. Eternal Warrior may be a bit strong for a free warlord trait, but I do like Monster Hunter. Not sure exactly how to go forward with this. Maybe give the warlord Preferred Enemy (Monstrous Creatures)
8. I'm good with this one. A little situational, but strong when it applies.


I hope this helps, I'm a big fan of what you've done so far.

Kain wrote:Just give me a bit to look over what you have and I can put out some Blurbs and short stories for you.

I look forward to seeing what you come up with!

rabid1903 wrote: I haven't had the chance to read through it as much as I'd like, but here are my quick opinions on your suggestions:

Hi Rabid! I know what you mean, I've been meaning to put myself about a bit more and comment on some other proposed rule threads but just haven't found the time :(

rabid1903 wrote:1. I can't remember exactly what this does, but I like that it's unique.

I intend to be adding a few more fruits in so hopefully it'll be more viable. Let me know if you have any more feelings about this one.

rabid1903 wrote:2. I like how this changes the dynamic of your army. I think it may be a little too strong though for a warlord trait. Maybe making it a 12" bubble would do the trick?

My concern with the 12" bubble is there's only one unit that produces swarms (with a second coming for 6.0) but I doubt they'll rarely be close enough to the warlord for this to have an affect, although I agree board-wide could be rather OTT... How about cutting out the fauna and having this instead: "Swarms within 6” of a unit with the Hrud special rule are no longer vulnerable to blasts and templates." - That way they're on a tactical leash, what do you think?

rabid1903 wrote:3. Not a huge fan of this. Although it is very fluffy, it dramatically changes the structure of your army and can be totally worthless if you happened to not take them as allies.

I agree, although I do like the mechanism to change the style of army. I'm now considering adding it to His Voice's unit entry as a special rule with the condition that it's only in effect if he's the sole Infestation HQ choice. Opinions?

rabid1903 wrote:4. This seems pretty good, maybe make it a bit stronger though? The rulebook has a warlord trait that grants victory points if you win a duel, which is stronger than this.

I see what you mean, it does lack something... Perhaps the Warlord gains Rampage after a successful duel until next turn? What do you think?

rabid1903 wrote:5. I'd bump it to D3 units to make it the same as the CSM trait (pretty sure it's them.) Plus infiltrate isn't as strong as it used to be.

Ah, thanks for the info! I shall indeed bump it up, but I like to be different.... How about also giving the Warlord Preferred Enemy: Necrons. Highly situational and only really put in for fluffy purposes. A little too much? What do you think?

rabid1903 wrote:6. Incredibly strong trait, this really needs to be toned down. My suggestion is to make it only the warlord. I like adding poison though, I think it suits the army very well.

On reflection I agree, but I'd like to give the army something as well... How about giving the warlord the poisoned (4+) special rule to its close combat attacks. Unit(s) the warlord is joined to improve their poisoned “to wound” roll by +1, to a maximum of 2+. Units without the poisoned special rule are unaffected. - That way it only really effects the Evergrowth units, which is fluffy, and also they're largely defensive units so I think it'll balance. What do you think?

rabid1903 wrote:7. Eternal Warrior may be a bit strong for a free warlord trait, but I do like Monster Hunter. Not sure exactly how to go forward with this. Maybe give the warlord Preferred Enemy (Monstrous Creatures)

Agreed, it sort of got tacked on because I didn't feel the trait was sufficiently strong enough and I couldn't think of what else to put Both PE and MH together? If so that seems a bit clunky. If I had to choose one I prefer MH if only for the name! maybe have it as MH/Tank Hunter (picking one during deployment)? That way it'll always be useful if not a little lacking.

rabid1903 wrote:8. I'm good with this one. A little situational, but strong when it applies.

Excellent.

rabid1903 wrote:I hope this helps, I'm a big fan of what you've done so far.

Helped masses, thanks again. Let me know what you think about the alterations.

Cheers,

disty

I thought about it all a bit more, let me know what you think

disty wrote:

rabid1903 wrote:1. I can't remember exactly what this does, but I like that it's unique.

I intend to be adding a few more fruits in so hopefully it'll be more viable. Let me know if you have any more feelings about this one.

I really need to scour through your codex before I can say anything remotely helpful on this one. It is unique enough that it will definitely need play tested.

disty wrote:

rabid1903 wrote:2. I like how this changes the dynamic of your army. I think it may be a little too strong though for a warlord trait. Maybe making it a 12" bubble would do the trick?

My concern with the 12" bubble is there's only one unit that produces swarms (with a second coming for 6.0) but I doubt they'll rarely be close enough to the warlord for this to have an affect, although I agree board-wide could be rather OTT... How about cutting out the fauna and having this instead: "Swarms within 6” of a unit with the Hrud special rule are no longer vulnerable to blasts and templates." - That way they're on a tactical leash, what do you think?

Seems like a pretty good compromise. Keeps a coherent army and isn't game breaking in a massive game. Once again is going to need play tested, but I think it's a step in the right direction.

disty wrote:

rabid1903 wrote:3. Not a huge fan of this. Although it is very fluffy, it dramatically changes the structure of your army and can be totally worthless if you happened to not take them as allies.

I agree, although I do like the mechanism to change the style of army. I'm now considering adding it to His Voice's unit entry as a special rule with the condition that it's only in effect if he's the sole Infestation HQ choice. Opinions?

Great change. It seemed like it should belong in the army, but I couldn't quite put my finger on it.

disty wrote:

rabid1903 wrote:4. This seems pretty good, maybe make it a bit stronger though? The rulebook has a warlord trait that grants victory points if you win a duel, which is stronger than this.

I see what you mean, it does lack something... Perhaps the Warlord gains Rampage after a successful duel until next turn? What do you think?

Rampage I feel is underused, and this makes it great for killing the sergeant then butchering the rest of the squad on the next turn. I like this change a lot.

disty wrote:

rabid1903 wrote:5. I'd bump it to D3 units to make it the same as the CSM trait (pretty sure it's them.) Plus infiltrate isn't as strong as it used to be.

Ah, thanks for the info! I shall indeed bump it up, but I like to be different.... How about also giving the Warlord Preferred Enemy: Necrons. Highly situational and only really put in for fluffy purposes. A little too much? What do you think?

I thought of a (hopefully) brilliant way to go with this. Keep it as one unit and add deep strike. Make it so if the unit can already infiltrate or deep strike that it can assault the turn it comes in. This will greatly limit the units may be able to break this by only letting a few assault out of reserves, but still gives it a use even when you don't have any of those units.

disty wrote:

rabid1903 wrote:6. Incredibly strong trait, this really needs to be toned down. My suggestion is to make it only the warlord. I like adding poison though, I think it suits the army very well.

On reflection I agree, but I'd like to give the army something as well... How about giving the warlord the poisoned (4+) special rule to its close combat attacks. Unit(s) the warlord is joined to improve their poisoned “to wound” roll by +1, to a maximum of 2+. Units without the poisoned special rule are unaffected. - That way it only really effects the Evergrowth units, which is fluffy, and also they're largely defensive units so I think it'll balance. What do you think?

That also sounds like a step in the right direction. Another thing you can do is instead change it from adding to the poison roll to replacing it with fleshbane. What I worry about isn't your ability to take out high toughness units, it's the reroll if your strength is equal or higher than your opponent's toughness. Adding +1 to the poison would make it so you'd wound most units 88% of the time assuming it is on a S 4 model. Meanwhile, fleshbane plateaus at 83% so you don't roflstomp low toughness units.

disty wrote:

rabid1903 wrote:7. Eternal Warrior may be a bit strong for a free warlord trait, but I do like Monster Hunter. Not sure exactly how to go forward with this. Maybe give the warlord Preferred Enemy (Monstrous Creatures)

Agreed, it sort of got tacked on because I didn't feel the trait was sufficiently strong enough and I couldn't think of what else to put Both PE and MH together? If so that seems a bit clunky. If I had to choose one I prefer MH if only for the name! maybe have it as MH/Tank Hunter (picking one during deployment)? That way it'll always be useful if not a little lacking.

Good change, and I agree that it was a bit clunky. Honestly maybe even just giving both MH and TH would do the trick. They aren't that strong of abilities to warrant being the sole benefit.

disty wrote:

Helped masses, thanks again. Let me know what you think about the alterations.

Cheers,

disty

Always glad to be of help, I know it feels like to put tons of time into things and fight for feedback on the forums.

Hey Rabid, thanks for even more input!
I also had a think (and a microscopic epiphany) so let's see where we're at...

In an attempt not to make this post massive I'll omit traits 1-4 and 8 which either seem fine in principle or have been removed.

5. Vay Jaakell

rabid1903 wrote:
I thought of a (hopefully) brilliant way to go with this. Keep it as one unit and add deep strike. Make it so if the unit can already infiltrate or deep strike that it can assault the turn it comes in. This will greatly limit the units may be able to break this by only letting a few assault out of reserves, but still gives it a use even when you don't have any of those units.

Interesting and justifiable in the fluff. I don't think there's a unit that deepstrikes in the 'dex but there's a certain amount of future proofing I'm all for.

6. Vay Quomb.

rabid1903 wrote:
That also sounds like a step in the right direction. Another thing you can do is instead change it from adding to the poison roll to replacing it with fleshbane. What I worry about isn't your ability to take out high toughness units, it's the reroll if your strength is equal or higher than your opponent's toughness. Adding +1 to the poison would make it so you'd wound most units 88% of the time assuming it is on a S 4 model. Meanwhile, fleshbane plateaus at 83% so you don't roflstomp low toughness units.

I can understand your concern with rerolls but I think in this instance Fleshbane would be OTT, my reasons being thusly: Only two units in the 'dex can utilise this trait, namely cultivators and Venocultralists. The cultivators base is S2 with S3 on the charge, although I expect with their special rules they'd be more likely to accept a charge than initiate it. Venocultralists are elites which only become really effective end game, and hit STR4 in turn 3. If your opponent hasn't dealt with them by then it's clearly a tactical choice, plus this would mean either the Warlord babysits them for a few turns or they slog it to his position.

7. Vay Velotck

rabid1903 wrote:
Good change, and I agree that it was a bit clunky. Honestly maybe even just giving both MH and TH would do the trick. They aren't that strong of abilities to warrant being the sole benefit.

Ok I'll include them both!

On to my micropithany: We're now down to seven, one needs to go. I looked at the "Tomorrow's harvest" trait and felt that, although it can lead to some crazy combos, it's highly situational and unlikely to be used. Then I looked at "From the smallest ant to the tallest tree"... Wait... Fruit... From the Mojjom tree? Coincidence? Too good to refuse!

Obviously it'll need play testing and balance but so far here's the revised table.

1) “From the smallest ant to the tallest tree” – Swarms within 6” of a unit with the Hrud special rule are no longer vulnerable to blasts and templates. The warlord may consume more than one Mojjom fruit per turn.
2) “By example” – When an enemy character is slain by the warlord in a duel, all units within 12” gain fearless and the warlord gains rampage. Effects last until the beginning of the next game turn.
3) “Vay Jaakell” – One unit may be given deepstrike before deployment. Units already with deepstrike may assault the turn they arrive from reserves.
4) “Vay Quomb” – The warlord gains the poisoned (4+) special rule to its close combat attacks. Unit(s) the warlord is joined to improve their poisoned “to wound” roll by +1, to a maximum of 2+. Units without the poisoned special rule are unaffected.
5) “Vay Velotck” – The warlord gains Monster hunter and Tank hunter.
6) “Vay Pjorous” – The warlord may choose to have enemy models arriving via outflank re-roll which table edge they arrive from. Add +1 when rolling to penetrate fortifications with an Av value.

rabid1903 wrote:Always glad to be of help, I know it feels like to put tons of time into things and fight for feedback on the forums.

Them feels, I know them. I noticed your 40k in 40 pages thread and have been meaning to get involved, hopefully I'll read through it in the coming few weeks and provide some feedback.! I already tip my hat to you, augmenting a current ruleset is one thing, completely revising it is another! Top work.

Cheers,

disty

Disty,

I apologize again for not being able to really dive into this, hopefully I can give it an in-depth read through tonight to try to help with more than just Warlord Traits. I feel that I've got a pretty decent sense of balance, so hopefully I can help out with that.

I'm very happy with the traits you have now, I think they're both balanced with each other and with other warlord traits. You essentially have broken it down to a spectrum of "buff the army" to "buff the character." The traits cover that spectrum very well, which I think is what GW should have strived for.

Last thing with Warlord Traits:
Generally the special characters are assigned a warlord trait. Have you thought about which ones will get what?


Anyways, onto some more things that I'll hopefully get to read into and answer on my own.

What are the primary builds you want the players to be able to do? Obviously you want everything to be balanced, but I feel that most codices have 2-3 builds and the armies that players choose are hybrids of those.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the ones that I could pick out were the following:
1 - Swarm list with lots of actual swarms and basically models to herd them.
2 - Elite army that starts weak but will ramp up and gain momentum as the battle continues. This is my favorite and if I play test this'll definitely be the route I'll go. The only other army I feel can have this play style is Dark Eldar with their pain tokens.
3 - A slow and terrifying wall of monsters protecting the rest of the army until you get close enough to strike. If the monsters make it they're going to put the hurt on the enemy, but their main purpose is to protect the rest of your army. This is the one I'm the least sure of.


If these are the three core builds you plan to use, I feel that they compliment each other well and will lend themselves to good hybrid choices for the players.

Wall of text, followed by the bottom line haha. Feel free to skip the wall of text, it's there to provide some food for thought.



All that wall of text brings me to a final question:
-Do you want the army choices to be more like pieces to a puzzle where each has their role to fill, or like a one man army where everything can handle anything to some extent.

I'm sure you've already thought about that and have the answer. I would just like to know it and your justification before I begin revising and providing suggestions

 rabid1903 wrote:
Disty,

I apologize again for not being able to really dive into this, hopefully I can give it an in-depth read through tonight to try to help with more than just Warlord Traits. I feel that I've got a pretty decent sense of balance, so hopefully I can help out with that.

Hi Rabid. No need to apologize, I appreciate the effort you're putting into this. I'm not too far off revising it for 6e now, barring writing additional fluff (which *shock*horror* progresses the story!) So you might feel you don't want to dive in quite yet if you haven't got the time. You're input is appreciated since I agree you seem to be a good judge of balance.

 rabid1903 wrote:
I'm very happy with the traits you have now, I think they're both balanced with each other and with other warlord traits. You essentially have broken it down to a spectrum of "buff the army" to "buff the character." The traits cover that spectrum very well, which I think is what GW should have strived for.

Last thing with Warlord Traits:
Generally the special characters are assigned a warlord trait. Have you thought about which ones will get what?


Anyways, onto some more things that I'll hopefully get to read into and answer on my own.

Good stuff, glad you think they work. As for the SC's... Well there aren't any yet! I'm not a very SC-centric person, I have plans to add a few in but nothing too soon. If there are to be any SC's I'd like the majority to evolve out of real table top occurrences and feats that defy the dice gods.

 rabid1903 wrote:
What are the primary builds you want the players to be able to do? Obviously you want everything to be balanced, but I feel that most codices have 2-3 builds and the armies that players choose are hybrids of those.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the ones that I could pick out were the following:
1 - Swarm list with lots of actual swarms and basically models to herd them.
2 - Elite army that starts weak but will ramp up and gain momentum as the battle continues. This is my favorite and if I play test this'll definitely be the route I'll go. The only other army I feel can have this play style is Dark Eldar with their pain tokens.
3 - A slow and terrifying wall of monsters protecting the rest of the army until you get close enough to strike. If the monsters make it they're going to put the hurt on the enemy, but their main purpose is to protect the rest of your army. This is the one I'm the least sure of.


If these are the three core builds you plan to use, I feel that they compliment each other well and will lend themselves to good hybrid choices for the players.

Whilst I agree that most codex's have 2-3 core builds I've not put much thought into what they would be! My main goal was more internal balance and synergy. I really want the reader to want to cram every unit into their list and be left with tough decisions on what to drop, no no-brainers, every entry is viable. Whether I've achieved this or not is another matter!

That said I wanted themed lists to be viable. The three you mentioned certainly should be, although perhaps not a 'purest' version (1. Swarms in the form of mass infantry is certainly viable; 2. Elite armies are definitely viable although the ramping is contained to a few units: Venocultralists, tooled up Cerberon, Caller of the depths - depending on definition; 3. Monster-mash is certainly one way to go although only three of the monstrous creatures can start on the board.) I was also focusing on fluff themed list so, although maybe not the most competitive, a player could create a mono Evergrowth/Shadow/Mechannibal list. I agree that hybrid lists are probably where the money is at in terms of power.

 rabid1903 wrote:
Balance things to make sure you consider:
Generally there should be at least two ways to take out aircraft, AV 14, and 2+ armor. You can have units dedicated to that or units that are just decent at it.
-For AA, I've always felt that these are the three a codex should choose 2 from:
---Dedicated air superiority flyer. It can hit ground targets obviously, but that's not what it's there for. Currently there aren't any great examples of this.
---Dedicated AAA ground unit. Think quad guns and the like. They are amazing at taking out air units and are very slow. This is where interceptor is critical.
---Highly mobile ground unit with AA capabilities. This is your jack-of-all-trades unit. Tau do this best with Skyfire on Crisis Suits. This is the most expensive option and is meant to have some kind of capability vs anything.

You can extrapolate this out to all of the above mentioned targets, and can even double up capabilities assuming they pay for it (a good combination is anti-AV 14 and 2+ armor.) These will really help make it so certain things aren't an auto-include because it's the only thing that can handle certain targets.

Everything else in the army can be used for the common things like transports and infantry. Additionally they can be used to create themes for your army and for scoring purposes.


The point I'm trying to make is an ideal codex should have roughly 3 options for everything. These should definitely overlap or else you end up like Tyranids with more options than you know what to do with (and most suck.) But they can't overlap too much or you end up like oldcrons where every army looks the same because you have no choices.

Your "wall of text" was nowhere near as bad as I was expecting, concise and useful!

I agree with you and have tried to provide a range of ways to deal with various adversaries, utilising various and varied methods, allowing the player to play the way he wants to. AA cover is something I'm currently working on, currently the Deathknell is what you would describe as an air superiority flyer, the Hrud specific fortification has two methods of dealing with flyers (both conventional gun or a platform that boosts a garrisoned His Shadows' powers, granting one of them Skyfire. I'm toying with other ideas as it's a little lacking, that said most armies struggle with a certain type of foe and I think flyers might be this. That said I certainly don't want any player to look across the table and think "flyers, auto loss." that's just poor design.

 rabid1903 wrote:
All that wall of text brings me to a final question:
-Do you want the army choices to be more like pieces to a puzzle where each has their role to fill, or like a one man army where everything can handle anything to some extent.

I'm sure you've already thought about that and have the answer. I would just like to know it and your justification before I begin revising and providing suggestions

Certainly the former, there are units that can perform a variety of roles but that's never been a goal, I dislike no-brainers. I want a 'dex that requires a good element of planning but also requires that player to think on their feet, reacting to developments as they arise, often asked to make difficult decisions. Ultimately the Infestation player should have an average deck but with enough aces up his sleeve that the opponent doesn't see coming.

looks good man

 Warp Angels wrote:
looks good man

Hi Warp Angels, thanks for reading

Sooooo...... 6.0 is out!

Inside not only can you find some updated and re-tweaked rules but three new units! Hurrah!

It's taken a bit longer than expected for the following reasons:

1) I won't lie, there's certainly a correlation between the amount of interest shown and how quickly my turnaround will be. The post has now achieved over 2300 views, which is awesome, but 85 replies, which is not, considering half of those are me
2) The weather's been nice! And if anyone know's the British, we're obsessed with the climate. I seem to have been in much demand as a dedicated BBQ chef at various get-togethers.
3) I'm not actually a big fan of 6e. The changes to the core set have been fine (at least non rage inducing) but I really dislike the flyers and Fortification implementations. The flyers seem so clunky and out of place, literally like they've been tacked on, whilst the ruleset for fortifications seems "hobbiest" for a better word. Not that I dislike the hobbiest side; I'm a massive 2e fan and I enjoy the detail and nuances that ruleset provides, but why, when the editions have been constantly streamlining, do you introduce such a throwback? Anyway, I think I've had a few vinos and I'm probably ranting now...
4) Shortly after Dast's post I began mulling over my no-SC decision... Then I had some ideas... Now I have seven unique SCs in the works. Damn you Dast! Is seven too many? I might put them up as a poll.

Anyway, as always, thanks for reading! I hope you enjoy.

Cheers,

disty

Oh, humanity...
Walls of unformated text. If you plan to improve it, please split text into two columns at least.

Disty you are the greatest sir. Although honestly I can't be bothered to read it I already know it is sweet and smooth just by looking at the contents and using the scroll bar to full effect. The names are really funny and fitting and perfect...I beckon, several hats off.

Mezmerro wrote:Oh, humanity...
Walls of unformated text. If you plan to improve it, please split text into two columns at least.

Haha! Oh, humanity? Someone's a touch theatrical. Formatting was at the bottom of my to-do list, mostly because I don't think the rewards outweigh the time taken and the subsequent annoyance caused when a large amount of re-working is required. Plus I lack sufficient pictures and extraneous descriptive texts to "plug the gaps". Never-the-less, since it's the only suggestion I've received, I'll bump it straight to the top.

IcyFireKnight wrote:Disty you are the greatest sir. Although honestly I can't be bothered to read it I already know it is sweet and smooth just by looking at the contents and using the scroll bar to full effect. The names are really funny and fitting and perfect...I beckon, several hats off.

I appreciate the comments and your refreshing honesty, I doth thy cap.