Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
I've been doing some browsing, and came across the concept of the farseer or command falcon.
It existed in epic…
Spoiler:
And someone even made one in 40k! (not me)
Spoiler:
I thought to myself, what a great model. If only it had rules… I might make one.
So I started doing some brainstorming on what might the rules be.
Force Org: HQ?
Stats: BS 4/5, Armor 12/12/10, Hull Points 3
Type: Skimmer, Fast, Tank
Points: 200?
Psyker (level 3 Mastery), follows the same same setup as a Farseer.
Still gets the ghost helm & runes of the Farseer.
5+ Invulnerable Save (rune armor scattered across the hull).
Any perils that results in a wound being suffered instead counts as a hull point lost.
Uses BS4 for shooting, BS5 when shooting psychic powers.
What do you guys think? Insight welcome, this is only a rough draft at best.
-DB
So to calrify, the idea here is that you'd be able to have the farseer casting powers as though he weren't embarked on a transport, right? Basically getting around the annoyance of a non-bike 'seer being unable to cast while embarked? I like it!
What kind of weapons would it have? Would it literally be a falcon with a falcon's usual loadout and options?
I'm not sure how to price it. Simply adding together the cost of a 'seer and a falcon seems obvious, but there are complications. The 'seer is able to cast powers while "embarked" unlike a normal 'seer in a vehicle, and that's a huge plus. On the other hand, you can't really hide the 'seer tank in a unit the way you can a normal farseer meaning it's much easier to single out and kill.
Pros:
+Immune to small arms fire
+Tons of mobility
+Can cast on the move like a bike 'seer
Cons:
-Can't hide it in a unit making it much easier to kill or even one-shot.
I feel like it's gaining more than it loses, but being drop pod bait is a big con. Hmm.
Would it be OP to allow it to take a "bodyguard" of up to 3 falcons as part of its own unit? Or possibly allow it to join an existing unit of falcons. Sort of like a vehicular IC?
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
No weapons except for the underslung catapults with the option to upgrade to cannon.
I'm not too sure about the bodyguard idea. Would it be fluffy for a command vehicle to be accompanied by two more falcons?
Perhaps, it could extend the range of Farseer powers by say, 6" (except for nova's). The turret would house a farseer with psionic amplification equipment.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
danjbrierton wrote: No weapons except for the underslung catapults with the option to upgrade to cannon.
I'm not too sure about the bodyguard idea. Would it be fluffy for a command vehicle to be accompanied by two more falcons?
Perhaps, it could extend the range of Farseer powers by say, 6" (except for nova's). The turret would house a farseer with psionic amplification equipment.
If it can't take falcon guns, I'd say it's way too pricey in terms of points. At that point, you're looking at a single model that can't be joined to another unit that can die to a single anti-tank shot and that can't meaningfully help in the shooting phase except by zipping around the board to stay safe. If it's going sans guns, I'd drop the cost to closer to 150. Maybe even as low as 125.
THe thing is that, to kill a seer, opponents normally have to get through a bunch of other guys before their shots will stick. This vehicle 'seer is really vulernable to anti-tank shots. A sternguard squad in a drop pod will blow this guy apart very quickly.
So I feel he either needs a price drop or some way of hiding inside a unit of other vehicles.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/27 23:26:06
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
Transport: -Transport Capacity: 6 models
- Fire Points: None
- Access Points: The Command Falcon has one Access Point at the rear.
Special Rules: Psyker (Mastery Level 3)
Runes of the Farseer (pg 109)
Psychic Amplification: The range of all Psychic Powers (except Nova) originating from the Command Falcon are increased by 6".
Psyker: A Command Falcon generates its powers from the Daemonology (Santic), Divination, Runes of Fate, and Telepathy disciplines. The Command Falcon counts as Ld 10 for the purposes of determining Perils of the Warp effects.
Options: - May exchange its twin-linked shrunken catapult for a shrunken cannon………….10 pts
- May take items from the Eldar Vehicle Equipment list.
Fluff (2 points per bullet, max 6 points) 0 - Not at all / Somewhat
1 - Mostly
2 - Entirely
1. Does the type/composition of the ratee accurately reflect officially published background/stories? Provide justification.
2. Does the options of the ratee accurately reflect officially published background/stories? Provide justification.
2 - Entierely
There is little to no background or stories on a Command Falcon. All that can be inferred is what one would assumed a merging of a grav-tank and Farseer would produce. The option for shuriken cannon upgrade is global across all Falcon chassis options, as is the generic options for Eldar vehicle equipment.
3. Does the stats/special rules of the ratee accurately reflect officially published background/stories? Provide justification.
1 - Mostly
As above, one can only infer what a merging of a grav-tank and Farseer would produce. The standard armor/hull points of a Falcon chassis is reflected. The standard psyker abilities and equipment of a Farseer is reflected. A translation of a Farseers Rune Armour was put on the Falcon chassis to confer a fair but not over-powered invulnerable save. The psychic amplification rule was created to mimic the fact that each grav-tank has their own unique rules (serpent shield for wave serpents, cloud strike for falcons, combined firing for fire prisms/night spinners).
Gameplay/Ruleset (Max 6 points)
1a. Compare the ratee to another entity of the closest official ruleset. List all of the advantages of the ratee with respect to its comparative. (Examples: points, options, special rules, etc.)
Compared to a Farseer, the following are advantages:
- Inability to be locked in close combat. (Minor)
- Harder to kill/resistant to small arms fire. (Moderate)
- Ability to take Eldar Vehicle Upgrades. (Moderate)
- Transport Capacity of 6. (Major)
- Extended range of psychic abilities. (Moderate)
1b. Compare the ratee to another entity of the closest official ruleset. List all of the disadvantages of the ratee with respect to it's comparative. (Examples: points, restrictions, special rules, etc.)
Compared to a Farseer, the following are disadvantages:
- Inability to utilize close combat. (Minor)
- Cannot hide in a large squad of Warlocks, Seer councils, or Guardians. (Moderate)
- Vulnerable to Alhpa Strike and Anti-Tank Weaponry. (Major)
- Limited options. (Minor)
- Cannot take Remnants of Glory. (Minor)
- Difficult to take advantage of cover. (Moderate)
- Increased point cost. (Minor)
- Not as mobile as a Farseer Skyrunner. (Minor)
1c. How do they compare? Provide justification.
2 - The advantages and disadvantages are about equal
There are 1 Major, 3 Moderate, and 1 Minor advantages. There are 1 Major, 2 Moderate, and 5 Minor disadvantages. These balance out to be about equal. What the Command Falcon gains in resilience, it loses in ability to hide/take cover. It has a few nifty advantages over the Farseer, like ability to transport, get a larger range of psychics, and take vehicle upgrades. But it loses out on many other things, like being less mobile then a Farseer Skyrunner, increased point cost, and less options (Skyrunner, Singing Spears, Remnants of Glory, etc).
2. Consider how the ratee affects others (friendly and enemy) in a legal gaming format. What are the results? Provide justification.
2 - The ratee causes neutral & fair combinations / has as many counters as it counters.
The Command Tank will shine in Falcon chassis heavy lists where small arms fire is basically negated by the Eldar player. The only option for Farseer-par psychics comes from jetbikes (which would attract the small arms fire) or footslogging Seers (which can't cast from inside vehicles/become vulnerable when they are able to cast). However, it has many counters. A 10 rear armor makes it vulnerable to almost any weapon. It is also more vulnerable to alpha-strikes then its Farseer/Farseer Skyrunner cousin. Capability wise, anything the Command Tank can do, a Farseer Skyrunner can also do, possibly even better. There is no added capability to an Eldar list that couldn't have already been done.
So why does Vehicle Rune Armour have to be a thing distinct from a Holofield? (Pricing/rules look pretty fair by comparison to the environment, I'd play against it.)
AnomanderRake wrote: So why does Vehicle Rune Armour have to be a thing distinct from a Holofield? (Pricing/rules look pretty fair by comparison to the environment, I'd play against it.)
Why are Rosariuses and Iron Haloes separate?
Edit: Also, valid reasoning time: The Vehicle Runes go away if you use Runes of the Farseer to reroll something.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/28 04:12:38
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
AnomanderRake wrote:So why does Vehicle Rune Armour have to be a thing distinct from a Holofield? (Pricing/rules look pretty fair by comparison to the environment, I'd play against it.)
Honestly, I overlooked this. Should I remove it?
JNAProductions wrote:
AnomanderRake wrote: So why does Vehicle Rune Armour have to be a thing distinct from a Holofield? (Pricing/rules look pretty fair by comparison to the environment, I'd play against it.)
Why are Rosariuses and Iron Haloes separate?
Edit: Also, valid reasoning time: The Vehicle Runes go away if you use Runes of the Farseer to reroll something.
That was last codex. This codex, that was transferred to the spirit stone relic.
I think it should be able to take up to 2 Falcons as options in its squad. Maybe make it also count as a Heavy choice if this option is taken.
Imagine the FalconSeer and 2 Falcons dropping in without scatter to unload 2-3 units of Dragons or Dire Avengers. In small games, you could literally have your entire army in 1 unit.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/28 12:42:55
Rather then the “Psyker” rule, you should probably use the “Psychic Pilot” rule. While mostly identical in this case, it might make a difference when interacting with other rules. And seems the appropriate one to use for a vehicle with powers.
AnomanderRake wrote:So why does Vehicle Rune Armour have to be a thing distinct from a Holofield? (Pricing/rules look pretty fair by comparison to the environment, I'd play against it.)
Honestly, I overlooked this. Should I remove it?
I've got a certain distaste for giving identical rules the same name, but I recognize it's a personal thing and some people disagree (see: Iron Halo/Rosarius above). I'd just call it Holofields but it's your unit, if you prefer the other name go for it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nevelon wrote: Rather then the “Psyker” rule, you should probably use the “Psychic Pilot” rule. While mostly identical in this case, it might make a difference when interacting with other rules. And seems the appropriate one to use for a vehicle with powers.
This is a good point; Psychic Pilot covers how Perils interacts with having hull points and no Leadership value (instead of rolling on the table Perils becomes 'the vehicle takes a glancing hit').
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galef wrote: I think it should be able to take up to 2 Falcons as options in its squad. Maybe make it also count as a Heavy choice if this option is taken.
Imagine the FalconSeer and 2 Falcons dropping in without scatter to unload 2-3 units of Dragons or Dire Avengers.
In small games, you could literally have your entire army in 1 unit.
Now I'm wondering about other vehicle-squadron HQ choices. Generic Predator command vehicles? Autarch Falcons? Some kind of Kustom Mek Battlewaggon?
Hrm. Tests...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/28 13:44:49
Galef wrote: I think it should be able to take up to 2 Falcons as options in its squad. Maybe make it also count as a Heavy choice if this option is taken.
Imagine the FalconSeer and 2 Falcons dropping in without scatter to unload 2-3 units of Dragons or Dire Avengers.
In small games, you could literally have your entire army in 1 unit.
The thing about making it a heavy option instead of an HQ option is that it prevents you from using the 'seer tank as your HQ in a CAD. Which I think is kind of the point. I don't always want to run a bike 'seer because I don't run scatterbikes and only rarely run shining spears. On the other hand, some enemy lists makes it borderline pointless to have a 'seer in a disembarked infantry squad because they get blasted off the table too easily. Having a vehicular 'seer (basically an embarked 'seer who can cast but who never disembarks) gives me a durable, mobile way of running a farseer.
I'm not sure about giving the HQ tank's "body guard" falcons the ability to deepstrike either. That seems to be more the purview of a dedicated falcon squad whereas this tank strikes me as more of "move with and support the main army" kind of arrangement. I agree about letting it take additional falcons as bodyguards though. A lone tank is just too squishy as an HQ. Consider giving the command tank the Character rule, by the way.
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
Galef wrote: I wasn't saying that it wouldn't count as an HQ, but that taking up to 2 additional Falcon would count it as BOTH an HQ & Heavy slot.
Ah. I see. In that case, maybe just give the command falcon a rule that says it can be attached to a unit of falcons the same way an IC can join a unit of infantry? And then have that same rule include a line indicating that it doesn't prevent the falcon squad from deepstriking? Either way.
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
Ultramarines, 3rd Co. and friends, 16k+ 
4k 
4k Points
Competition Index
