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 don't think anything should get infinite range, 60'' is already long enough that you're not measuring in anything short of apoc scale games.
-1 cover saves could work, but that'd be costly.
Perhaps also, to further emphasise that these guys are super stealthy, you could downgrade them to flak armour and justify them getting stealth. But not shrouded. Because I still wish you'd remove the army wide stealth, even on covert ops they perform similar roles to Scouts (infiltrate and scout rules) which should be either a formation or a doctrine benefit.
Oh and also, I suggest you reword camocloaks to simply give +1 cover save. This both brings in line with other armies cloaks, removes confusion from stacking them with stealth, and removes the need for combining special rules and wargear benefits on a profile.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/03/09 18:35:53
I don't think anything should get infinite range, 60'' is already long enough that you're not measuring in anything short of apoc scale games.
-1 cover saves could work, but that'd be costly.
Perhaps also, to further emphasise that these guys are super stealthy, you could downgrade them to flak armour and justify them getting stealth. But not shrouded. Because I still wish you'd remove the army wide stealth, even on covert ops they perform similar roles to Scouts (infiltrate and scout rules) which should be either a formation or a doctrine benefit.
Oh and also, I suggest you reword camocloaks to simply give +1 cover save. This both brings in line with other armies cloaks, removes confusion from stacking them with stealth, and removes the need for combining special rules and wargear benefits on a profile.
I gave them, in exchange for the squad leader not shooting, +1 BS and + 12' range to their weapon. It's an upgrade that cost around 15 pts.
It's on much lighter weapons than those of a Devastator squad though. Considering the base prce of the squad I think its relatively fair. We could augment the price of the upgrade, but reduce the base cost too.
But again.... a signum is an actual targeting computer drawing off of a space marines power pack.
What you have is a guy with [possibly night/heat vision] binoculars going ''over there lads''.
*maybe* he could do something like letting them reroll 1s? But I'd have to check the mathhammer on that thing.
Oh and your hot-shot sniper is still 48'', it shouldn't be imo.
Also, pretty please could you call it a hot-shot longlas? No reason other than a las sniper is called a longlas.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/09 18:52:56
It's on much lighter weapons than those of a Devastator squad though. Considering the base prce of the squad I think its relatively fair. We could augment the price of the upgrade, but reduce the base cost too.
Much lighter? It's S6 AP3. That wounds on 2s and ignores armor against Marines-it's effectively a lascannon against ordinary marines (with the exception of Iron Hands, who will still get FNP). Not to mention it gets Rending, so it's even capable of hurting 2+ armor and any vehicle.
I'd agree that it's not quite a lascannon, but MUCH lighter? No.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
It's on much lighter weapons than those of a Devastator squad though. Considering the base prce of the squad I think its relatively fair. We could augment the price of the upgrade, but reduce the base cost too.
Much lighter? It's S6 AP3. That wounds on 2s and ignores armor against Marines-it's effectively a lascannon against ordinary marines (with the exception of Iron Hands, who will still get FNP). Not to mention it gets Rending, so it's even capable of hurting 2+ armor and any vehicle.
I'd agree that it's not quite a lascannon, but MUCH lighter? No.
Its much lighter because now, they have the following profile: Range: 48, S: X. AP: 3, Sniper.
Strength : 6, AP 3, heavy 1 at range 30 is about as good (a bit better with rending and pinning and precision shot) as a plasma gun, let alone a plasma cannon.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/03/09 19:33:59
Does the Insidious sergeant still have a hotshot longlas? He shouldn't.
He's also BS5, it'd be flogging a dead horse to readdress this properly, but can I at least poke it?
Math hammer: 4 BS5 hotshot longlas shots kill 1.67 marines, which includes 0.33 of a marine you chose.
Compared to 1.33 marines dead if they're BS4, with the same number being your own choice.
Of course this is just vs marines in the open, to say nothing about rending. Although I'd still say a plasmagun is a more reliable anti-tank weapon against AV10-12.
EDIT: Reroll 1s BS4 gets you 1.56 marines dead, of which you choose 0.39
twin-linked BS4 gets you 1.778 marines dead
Compared to marines firing 4 plasma shots killing 2.22 enemy marines and 0.222 marines dying in the gets hot.
kirotheavenger wrote: Does the Insidious sergeant still have a hotshot longlas? He shouldn't.
He's also BS5, it'd be flogging a dead horse to readdress this properly, but can I at least poke it?
He doesn't have a Hot-Shot Longlas, but he does have a Hot-shot Laspistol.
kirotheavenger wrote: Does the Insidious sergeant still have a hotshot longlas? He shouldn't.
He's also BS5, it'd be flogging a dead horse to readdress this properly, but can I at least poke it?
He doesn't have a Hot-Shot Longlas, but he does have a Hot-shot Laspistol.
Then you should reflect that in the profile. Putting 'hot-shot longlas (except tempestor)' or something.
Or 'one Insidious Scion must be upgraded to an Insidious Tempestor, exchanging his hot-shot longlas for a set of precision magnoculars in the process'.
kirotheavenger wrote: Does the Insidious sergeant still have a hotshot longlas? He shouldn't.
He's also BS5, it'd be flogging a dead horse to readdress this properly, but can I at least poke it?
He doesn't have a Hot-Shot Longlas, but he does have a Hot-shot Laspistol.
Then you should reflect that in the profile. Putting 'hot-shot longlas (except tempestor)' or something.
Or 'one Insidious Scion must be upgraded to an Insidious Tempestor, exchanging his hot-shot longlas for a set of precision magnoculars in the process'.
Already done, I consider reducing their price significantly. 2 marines dead per turn would require them to shoot for about 8 turns without taking any casualty to earn back their points. I think they could get a 5 point reduction to make them a little bit more worth it.
JNAProductions wrote: What if they're shooting Devastators, who are often worth 49 points per model?
Or Sternguard/Deathwatch, who are 22 base, and can take a slew of upgrades?
Or a Librarian in power armour?
Or constripts, 3pts a model.
But at BS5, 60'' range sniper AP3 these things are amazing at hunting most things, I'm awful at inventing points cost without direct comparisons but ~20-30pts is probably about right.
They do however feel a lot more like snipers now, rather than the heavy weapons teams they were before.
JNAProductions wrote: What if they're shooting Devastators, who are often worth 49 points per model?
Or Sternguard/Deathwatch, who are 22 base, and can take a slew of upgrades?
Or a Librarian in power armour?
Or constripts, 3pts a model.
But at BS5, 60'' range sniper AP3 these things are amazing at hunting most things, I'm awful at inventing points cost without direct comparisons but ~20-30pts is probably about right.
They do however feel a lot more like snipers now, rather than the heavy weapons teams they were before.
I do agree with you on that point. They can get nerfed by cover saves, but that's part of life.
Lexicanum wrote:Tempestus Scions, also known as Storm Troopers in Low Gothic, are the elite shock troops of the Imperial Guard and Militarum Tempestus.[1] They are trained to carry out special operations such as deep strike assaults, reconnaissance and infiltration beyond enemy lines.
As we can see, emphasis on being SHOCK troops. We see they are speciliased in Deep Striking (which can be represented by the Deep Strike rule), reconnaissance (represented by the Scout USR) and infiltration (represented by the Infiltrate USR).
Nothing highlights a skill in stealth. Now, let's compare that to Scouts. their role is to range ahead of the main Space Marine force, preparing the way for the main advance by
...infiltrating enemy lines, sabotaging and gathering intelligence..
So, as we see, infiltrating (Infiltrate USR), gathering intelligence, the role of a Scout (Scout USR).
How do you think you get behind enemy lines without being stealthy?
By Deep Striking.
What do you think the term "special operation"? Special operation is a fancy word to describe assassination missions, sabotage, spying, etc. Stealth is essential to all of these things.
Funnily enough, Scouts do EXACTLY that as well.
Why don't Scouts have Stealth?
Scions should be better than Scouts because Scouts are in training to become Shock Troopers not anything else and are disadvantage by their Soace Marine body when it comes to stealth because they huge, heavy and smelly like all Space Marines.
Huge, heavy and smelly - I wonder what else that describes...
Kommandos.
The entire Raven Guard Chapter and their successors.
Lictors (although they have chameleonic skin).
Size, smell and weight can't be THAT much of an issue then.
If you want to make an army of Stealth Guardsmen, go ahead. But don't try and take Scions out of their role. They are Shock Troopers, hard and fast hitters, not stealth experts.
I am continuing the trend that GW gave them in the Millitarum Tempestus codex which makes them Shock Troopers with a strong Black op streak to a full Black op army so that they can truly be soemthing else than one of the gak unit of the Guard codex and poor Space Marines copycats.
So you're exaggerating an aspect of the army, not even their entire description, to be entirely this streak, and largely leaving behind the actual description of the army.
Scions, as per the description for GW are "shock troops". Not Black Ops. Shock Troops.
In the same vein, that is like me turning Space Marines, who have lots of armoured units and tanks, into a purely tank army.
Also, this point is negated by your own argument later in the post - will address later.
Because I don't know how I would do that and, since it would affect almost all armies, it's well outside the perview and boundaries of a single codex.
So you haven't fixed the problem with snipers. You want to make snipers, yet won't actually use the rules for them, and don't try to fix them. Without the sniper rule, your guys are no more of a sniper than a Devastator Squad, no matter how you fluff it.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Scouts, Kroot and Deathwatch are all still valid, and Eldar Pathfinders are snipers in an elite army all the same.
No, none of them are elite, specialised elements of their respective army. Kroots are auxiliary who are actualy better in close sombat, Scouts are the worst Space Marine you will ever meet unless they are Space Wolves scouts and aren't specialised sniper since htey can be geared with regular bolters, but also close combat that's not a elite specialist it's the opposite. Eldar Pathfinders are troop choices, not elite choices.
That all depends on what "elite" is relative to.
Scouts are "elite" to Guardsmen in just the same way as your Scions are. They're incredibly good shots, very well skilled and powerful. Sure, Scouts are the least experienced Space Marines, but they are certainly very powerful soldiers, with skills beating those of elite Guard units - if the worst Space Marines have those skills, what does that say about the regular ones?
Kroot weapons can have the Sniper rule, which is more than your guys have.
Eldar may only be a Troops choice in game, but that doesn't mean they're not elite snipers. Hell, Tactical Marines are the most experienced rank and file Astartes, and they're just a troops choice.
Slot means nothing. Other equipment means nothing. As per fluff, Scouts are just as able as marksmen and infiltrators as Scions. There's nothing to suggest otherwise.
Again, you seem to think that specialising in something makes you instantly better than anyone else. Not true. A child might exclusively train as a sniper, and be better amongst other children, but a grown man with all round training will probably be a better shot.
The same is with the Scion. They are far better than a normal man, that is certain. But they certainly are not better shots than Astartes, who have had just as much training, and have the experience, skill, and enhancements to support it.
So you admit the real issue - you want YOUR idea of a sniper, not GW's. The problem then becomes GW's portrayal of a sniper. Why not actually address that, and then have a Sniper? I mean, leave the Insidias as they are, by all means, but their weapons are just as much a sniper as a lascannon.
Dude, I am making this codex because I want MY IDEA of Scions not the portrayal of GW.
This conflicts with your previous statement.
"I am continuing the trend that GW gave them in the Millitarum Tempestus codex which makes them Shock Troopers with a strong Black op streak"
You say you're basing it off GW's portrayal of them, and then you say that you want your idea, not GW's portrayal?
That's the concept behind this entire section of Dakka Dakka. Substitute the vision of GW for our own and share it with others.
You said that you were making Scions in according to GW. Then you say you're not. Which one are you doing?
If you think S6 is too much, I would find S5 rather reasonnable. Insidias Scions are in the same slot than tanks, giant monsters and devastator squads. Even at their current profile, the weapon is not much better than heavy bolter and probably a bit weaker than the autocannon. It fires a single shot, has a 30' S: 6, AP: 3, Heavy 1, pinning, precision shot, rending. With so little shot, rending is barely useful. Precision shot is nice, but very situationnal. Pinning isn't that great since most army have over 75% chances of making their Ld check. An autocanon has 18' more in range, one less AP, one more strength and twice the shots. For a Heavy Support Unit its rather reasonnable, even with BS 5. You won't kill tanks with these guys unless they are light tanks. You will kill MEQ and they might respond in kind in the next turn since most weapons are 24'. They are an overly specialised form of Devastator Squad. They have no multiple weapon choices. They can't shred light infantry, they can't kill tanks with a reasonnable armor. As such they are performing well, but are far from OP.
Nothing wrong with performance, they're fine on that. It's the fluff that's the issue. You say they're armed with snipers, but nothing indicates that, and BS5 makes no sense from a fluff perspective.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/10 00:03:29
Considering that they are now BS 4 and only get BS 5 through a special piece of equipment. They also wield full fledge snipers too.
To answer your design question. The answer is of course both. I took the part of GW that I liked and build upon it to produce a still relatively faithful and better (in my opinion) version of the product.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Army wide Stealth still exists. I don't know if you can be persuaded to remove it, but I still don't think it should be there.
Agreed.
I think either you should get scout and/or infiltrate as part of a formation/doctrine, or you stealth.
Scout/infiltrate makes like Scouts (analogous in their role) stealth makes them like raven guard (analogous in 'doctrine' rules)
I think insidious scions should only get stealth as base if they get flak armour, otherwise they shouldn't.
Inless you're specialists on the level of Eldar specialisms don't change a units stats, just their equipment.
Army wide Stealth will remain. Their role is analogous to that of ork Kommando who have stealth (amongst other things) and Raven Guards who, despite being being giants in heavy power armor, also have it. Scout/Infiltrate will remain an option via a formation with the exception of unit or two who will have it insteat of Deep Strike. Deep Strike will remain a universal rule for all units and so will Move Through Cover.
epronovost wrote: Army wide Stealth will remain. Their role is analogous to that of ork Kommando who have stealth (amongst other things) and Raven Guards who, despite being being giants in heavy power armor, also have it. Scout/Infiltrate will remain an option via a formation with the exception of unit or two who will have it insteat of Deep Strike. Deep Strike will remain a universal rule for all units and so will Move Through Cover.
I've no concern for Deep Strike and Move Through Cover. They fit the Scion fluff and their MO.
Stealth, as I have proved, is not.
Reconnaissance and infiltration (both represented IN GAME with the Scout and Infiltrate rules respectively) are described as some of the operations they undertake, and I'd be fine with armywide Scout. Ideally, a formation that grants Scout and Infiltrate would be better, but I'll compromise.
I can quote verbatim from GW that Scions Deep Strike, Infiltrate and perform reconnaissance - I see absolutely NOTHING about them being better at finding cover than Scouts. They share mission objective with Scouts, and as such, Scions should have the same rules that pertain to that - namely Scout or Infiltrate. Not Stealth.
Their role is, as GW have said, as a Shock Trooper. Not Stealth. They might have units who are stealthier, so you can feel free to add specific stealth units, but it's not army wide.
Kommandos are given Stealth not because that their role, but because they're good at hiding.
Raven Guard have Stealth because they are preternaturally good at it, presumably from their actual genetics.
Your reasoning for Scions getting it is "because it's their combat role", despite:
A) Scions being no more optimised for stealth as per fluff than Space Marine Scouts
B) Combat Role doesn't dictate rules, as we can see from Space Marine Scouts who are described nearly exactly as Scions as according to combat role.
I clearly demonstarted that Scout Space Marines were Space Marines in training whi fill the role of scouts, not highly trained operative dedicated to the role of Scouts. The youngest scout has less training than the youngest Scion, has worst natural aptitudes since the Space Marine size, weight and smell makes them easier to locate than humans wearing comparable equipment. This explain why, of all the scout and infiltrator units in the game Scouts are amongst the very few who don't have Stealth as a Special Rule.
I also clearly demonstrated that, while inspired and still largely faithfull to GW most recent lore on Scions, I have clearly stated that Scions are now completly and fully Black Op, making your point on Scions being Shock Trooper and Scouts, a bit like Space Marines Scout, outdated.
Rules by can be dictated by several factors: combat role, training, level of specialisation, role within the codex, efficiency in a wider game setting and, in the case of GW, potential for profite (yes, there is such a thing as rules for cash within GW). No, combat role alone isn't always sufficient to grant a Special Rule (or a stat) to a unit, but there are other factor and those factors need to be taken in consideration. Game balance isn't more or less important than fluff. How experimented or specialised your units is, is also going to affect the type and numbers of Special Rule it might have or not.
Stealth will not go, because, even if you think you are right (and you have good reason for it), I think I am right (and I have good reason for it). Yes, if you are wondering we both can be petty at times and its alright.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/10 17:34:56
Read the books and you'll know Scouts are anything but inexperienced.
If you want 100% black ops Scions why do you have heavy grav vehicles, deep strike, and heavy air support.
That isn't very 'black'
kirotheavenger wrote: Read the books and you'll know Scouts are anything but inexperienced.
If you want 100% black ops Scions why do you have heavy grav vehicles, deep strike, and heavy air support.
That isn't very 'black'
Read any books and you will see that Scions are more experienced.
The Grav Vehicule in question is a Mobile Stealth Field Generator. As for heavy air support, every single black op forces today is transported via helicopter (or parachuted and extracted by helicopter), supported by combat drones and fighter-bomber. Thus, air support is an integral component of Black ops. Furthermore, you will notice that Scions make use of Valkyrie and Vendetta, the transport helicopter equivalent of the Imperium and the Vicotry which is closer to an attack helicopter or a low altitude fighter-bomber plane. I could also have added some out field heavy artillery and long range missiles. I decided to make the missile battery a small Deep Striking version to allow enemy forces to be able to take it out for balance purpose.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/03/10 20:41:56
I clearly demonstarted that Scout Space Marines were Space Marines in training whi fill the role of scouts, not highly trained operative dedicated to the role of Scouts.
Not true. We see no quantifiers indicating this, only that they are both skilled in the same things, and if we include actual GW stats (because they're the closest thing we actually have to something near quantifying it) then the Scouts are actually MORE skilled.
So no, Scouts are not inferior. Yes, a Scout is not a full line Space Marine. That's because a full line Space Marine is such an elite role. As they develop into their implants, they are dedicated to the art of subterfuge and infiltration. They have just as much training as a Scion, and the genetic implantation to boot.
The youngest scout has less training than the youngest Scion
Not true. Space Marine training, even at Neophyte level, is just as intensive as Scions training. From the recruit's upbringing, their implantation, conditioning, mind-wiping, hypno-therapy, etc etc - they are every bit as trained as a Scion.
has worst natural aptitudes since the Space Marine size, weight and smell makes them easier to locate than humans wearing comparable equipment.
Explain Ork Kommando Nobs who are even larger than a Space Marine, and still have Stealth.
Explain why Grots don't have stealth, despite being smaller and lighter.
Explain how you wear exactly the same armour as a Scout, bulkier in fact, with all your power packs, wrist-devices, and suchlike, and should get Stealth.
Weight can't be that much of a concern if Kommandos have it, nor can size. Orks smell more than Astartes too. So, how come Kommandos get Stealth then?
This explain why, of all the scout and infiltrator units in the game Scouts are amongst the very few who don't have Stealth as a Special Rule.
Or, perhaps GW feels that Stealth isn't in their MO, or they can buy camo-cloaks to make them compare to the actually gifted and skilled Kommando Orks. However, because we can infer that, due to training and the similar MOs, Scions would also lack Stealth.
I also clearly demonstrated that, while inspired and still largely faithfull to GW most recent lore on Scions, I have clearly stated that Scions are now completly and fully Black Op, making your point on Scions being Shock Trooper and Scouts, a bit like Space Marines Scout, outdated.
So you're picking and choosing parts of Scion lore, just like me picking and choosing that now all Space Marines go to war on Bikes.
You're changing the Scions from what they are laid out to be into something else. You say your argument is supported by fluff, but you're practically rewriting it into your own fan-lore.
What GW says is not what you're saying, and GW is the official source of canon by which I am measuring Scions.
Rules by can be dictated by several factors: combat role, training, level of specialisation, role within the codex, efficiency in a wider game setting and, in the case of GW, potential for profite (yes, there is such a thing as rules for cash within GW). No, combat role alone isn't always sufficient to grant a Special Rule (or a stat) to a unit, but there are other factor and those factors need to be taken in consideration. Game balance isn't more or less important than fluff. How experimented or specialised your units is, is also going to affect the type and numbers of Special Rule it might have or not.
Or, alternatively, you could not try and make your Scions good at pretty much everything, and have a specialised stealth unit, instead of trying to make something Not-Scion fit.
Stealth will not go, because, even if you think you are right (and you have good reason for it), I think I am right (and I have good reason for it). Yes, if you are wondering we both can be petty at times and its alright.
Yes, but I think more people are critiquing the inclusion of Stealth rather than wanting to keep it in.
At the end of the day, it's your codex. None of us will probably play against it. But if you want feedback, which is what we're giving you, then just saying "Nah, not changing it" isn't a positive response.
epronovost wrote:
kirotheavenger wrote: Read the books and you'll know Scouts are anything but inexperienced.
If you want 100% black ops Scions why do you have heavy grav vehicles, deep strike, and heavy air support.
That isn't very 'black'
Read any books and you will see that Scions are more experienced.
What books would these be?
Judging from what I can see, there appears to be very little difference in experience. They are similar ages, trained similarly, and given similar combat roles. I fail to see how the Scions are more experienced.
The Grav Vehicule in question is a Mobile Stealth Field Generator. As for heavy air support, every single black op forces today is transported via helicopter (or parachuted and extracted by helicopter), supported by combat drones and fighter-bomber. Thus, air support is an integral component of Black ops.
Except 40k operates on a completely different level to modern warfare. In 40k, using Bikes as a frontline unit is seen as effective. In 40k, massed infantry charges are tactically valid.
It's not like real life.
Furthermore, you will notice that Scions make use of Valkyrie and Vendetta, the transport helicopter equivalent of the Imperium and the Vicotry which is closer to an attack helicopter or a low altitude fighter-bomber plane. I could also have added some out field heavy artillery and long range missiles. I decided to make the missile battery a small Deep Striking version to allow enemy forces to be able to take it out for balance purpose.
And that's all fine. All befitting of a Shock Trooper army, which they are described as by GW. If you want to retcon them to be Black Ops, fine. But there's no canon to support you, and therefore no canon to support them being better at Stealth than a Scout Marine.
There's quite a few example of Scions doing Black Ops stuff in their codex, from dropping down ahead of the Marines to disable AA defences to assassinating Tau scientists.
Bobthehero wrote: There's quite a few example of Scions doing Black Ops stuff in their codex, from dropping down ahead of the Marines to disable AA defences to assassinating Tau scientists.
Space Marine Scouts have been cited to do exactly the same.
See the Amar Secession for assaulting before the main SM force to hijack artillery emplacements, and the Codex outright states that "relying on stealth rather than brute force, Scouts slip behind enemy lines, gather intelligence, destroy strategic targets, and capture or assassinate key enemy commanders, then fade away before the enemy has had a chance to react."
Member of 
DKoK Blog:
Have a look, I guarantee you will not see greyer armies, EVER! Now with at least 4 shades of grey
