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.

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
What do "slow and purposeful" and "bulky" translate to?

Slow and purposefull was a slower movement then standart generally d6 but they had no disadvantage / could shoot heavy weapons without drawback.

Bulky was that they take 2 seats in a transport.
(weapon teams f.e.)

So for the rolls on the mutant overlord how should it read for us now ?

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
So for the rolls on the mutant overlord how should it read for us now ?

Like i said before the table there is something that gives me issues.
I would suggest giving him the regular Mutant table or an adapted one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
I understand, I just have a hard time imaging the forces of rival gods working together without trying to kill one another.

Missed that one.
The most powerfull leader leads.
It's also just the cult legions that have such problems with each other. WB f.e
Function well, bl functions well. Sure if the big Boss dies then the factions tend to go shank each other but so long the demagogue lives and is powerfull enough / has enough favours to spend he can hold the warband togheter.

And let's not get bogged down in attaching too many restrictions to rules based on the fluff. Other factions don't do so, I don't see why R&H should be the exception.

To be clear, obviously rules are based on fluff to a large degree, but a lot of times our objections are based on our own perceptions of how we think a faction/unit should work as opposed to what is actually represented in the background and what is left up to players in terms of using our imagination.

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
And let's not get bogged down in attaching too many restrictions to rules based on the fluff. Other factions don't do so, I don't see why R&H should be the exception.

To be clear, obviously rules are based on fluff to a large degree, but a lot of times our objections are based on our own perceptions of how we think a faction/unit should work as opposed to what is actually represented in the background and what is left up to players in terms of using our imagination.

That is why i'd say keep it simple stupid and take the restrictions and access over from IA13.

Of course that means also that we need to discuss covenants and the devotion effects that were brought up.

Not Online!!! wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
So for the rolls on the mutant overlord how should it read for us now ?

Like i said before the table there is something that gives me issues.
I would suggest giving him the regular Mutant table or an adapted one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
I understand, I just have a hard time imaging the forces of rival gods working together without trying to kill one another.

Missed that one.
The most powerfull leader leads.
It's also just the cult legions that have such problems with each other. WB f.e
Function well, bl functions well. Sure if the big Boss dies then the factions tend to go shank each other but so long the demagogue lives and is powerfull enough / has enough favours to spend he can hold the warband togheter.

Thanks that makes it a little easier for me. That does bring me to another question, do we allow some CSM or CD forces to be in the same detachments as R&H? If so which ones do we allow and what do we prohibit?

I'd say no to that question. Can't think of any that work that way in this edition other than the daemons present in Codex: CSM for summoning purposes.

Am I wrong? Is there a precedent?

Hmm, I guess Death Guard and Thousand Sons have overlapping units.

Still, I'd be inclined to keep Heretic Astartes separate.

No, i don't think we should give them access to the same detachments/ within the same detachments.

Not to mention that Cultists in CSM were nerfed for a reason and allowing this for renegades would just invite abuse again. I'd rather be safe and play a weaker codex/index then sorry and have everything nerfed again. Cough Malefic Lord cough.

I would say therefore no to mixed detachments.
I also would say no to soup via denying Arch demagogic traits of anykind and devotions if your Renegade demagogue is not the warlord.

There is the special case of the slaanesh coevnant in the IA 13 list, which unlocks a unit of Noise marines and a sonic dreadnought. 1 of each if you so chose for your demagogue, the same is true for all covenants and the lack of covenants. I'd say they should remain there in order to not invalidate lists of veterans that fielded them, they also should count not against battleforged kinda like Tempestus scions. Basically limited access as is in IA13 but only if you correctly choose the covenant for your warlord demagogue.

That is the only exception i'd make. Same with plague drones,etc.

What if RH got imperial vehicles at half cost but come with half wounds?

To represent that the vehicle was salvaged and repaired shoddily.
Perhaps half cost is too advantages , maybe a 33% discount is better.

Or maybe vehicles lose 25% wounds and receive 25% point reduction. Then an 25% upgrade purchase can be made to restore wounds before game starts of the player wants.

Or perhaps reduced movement. But each vehicle can purchase upgrade to restore full movement putting it back to regular cost. This way, it can represent a mostly damaged immobile armored force.

I dont like this random rolling for ld for each infantry models. Why not just lower all the leadership values by 1 compared to loyalist and adjust the cost lower. This would make sigils and vox caster upgrades a must have.

Militia training upgrade needs to come back. Definitely needed for vehicles and infantry. Units can stay cheap or cost their loyalist equal after this upgrade purchase.

RH should never get Orders. RH should not be as organized or disciplined as loyalist guards.

Covenants in a weaker form needs to comeback. It needs to be simpler without all the complexity it had. Please no master of the horde gimmick. Just make the returning infantry just like the CSM cultist strategem spending cp.

RH should in no way be AM+1. DKK is AM+1.

RH design philosophy should be quantity over quality. It should be an army of poorly trained, poor leadership, poorly equipped militia, rabbles, mercs.

What if RH got imperial vehicles at half cost but come with half wounds?

To represent that the vehicle was salvaged and repaired shoddily.
Perhaps half cost is too advantages , maybe a 33% discount is better.

Or maybe vehicles lose 25% wounds and receive 25% point reduction. Then an 25% upgrade purchase can be made to restore wounds before game starts of the player wants.

Nope, the only thing that renegades generaly have a shortcoming is trained members.

Also Heretek Magoses exist. Blody handed Reaver exists, not to mention whole chaos sectors exist. There is no reason as to why stuff should not work as intended.

I dont like this random rolling for ld for each infantry models. Why not just lower all the leadership values by 1 compared to loyalist and adjust the cost lower. This would make sigils and vox caster upgrades a must have.

This disadvantage was always there. However in older editions this was d6+4 for random leadership.
Personally i would not mind reverting it back to that instead of the d6+2.

Militia training upgrade needs to come back. Definitely needed for vehicles and infantry. Units can stay cheap or cost their loyalist equal after this upgrade purchase.

RH should never get Orders. RH should not be as organized or disciplined as loyalist guards.

I agree on the non order part. Militia training will be back since this will be a update to the IA13 list.

Covenants in a weaker form needs to comeback. It needs to be simpler without all the complexity it had. Please no master of the horde gimmick. Just make the returning infantry just like the CSM cultist strategem spending cp.

RH should in no way be AM+1. DKK is AM+1.

RH design philosophy should be quantity over quality. It should be an army of poorly trained, poor leadership, poorly equipped militia, rabbles, mercs.

Covenants are again marks, they certainly need not to be weaker then their counterpart in the IA 13 list was, end of discussion.

Again since this is a update attempt at the list of IA13 both of these are there aswell as the quality appproaches we had there aswell, if you so chose.

Edit: the list also represented the Traitor Guard / other organized military forces with the blody handead reaver and heretek Magos, and that it will do again, you lose on orders but gain a cheaper pricetag for that and some other toys.

I don't know if you have seen it, but the 30k guard list is a pretty solid base for this, kinda like old 7th renegades, you take a HQ and pay points (which these days would be free) to upgrade your army to be a specific kind of faction, high tech, low tech etc.

So but a renegade commander, give it the blood pact trait, this then unlocks scions as a elite option, carapace armour for all infantry units and close combat weapons, sky's the limit with this kind of thing.

 Formosa wrote:
I don't know if you have seen it, but the 30k guard list is a pretty solid base for this, kinda like old 7th renegades, you take a HQ and pay points (which these days would be free) to upgrade your army to be a specific kind of faction, high tech, low tech etc.

So but a renegade commander, give it the blood pact trait, this then unlocks scions as a elite option, carapace armour for all infantry units and close combat weapons, sky's the limit with this kind of thing.

yeah, except that 30k armies are not 40k armies, and the unique units you unlocked are not in the book aswell.

That is why i try to use the base IA13 and update it.
However if you have access to the book i would apreciate some help there for specific things, like warlord traits.


_________________________________________________________________________________

Additionally i would like to determine which parts are good enough handled by the index:

I personally am a fan of the 30pts ogryns.

I agree with the marauder rules and profile, but not with the fact that they lost the access to energy weapons.

The commander feels like a minor HQ and should probably be the equivalent to such, kinda like the exalted champion is to the chaos lord.
based on that i'd recommend that the Arch demagogue is a 0-1 HQ choice, that has to buy a demagogue devotion and has to be your warlord. I would also let the arch demagogue have the same base profile to the commander, except of course the force buy of the upgrade.

Command squad disciples unlocks would then be tied to the arch demagogue, so always only 1 Command squad.

I also think the Psy powers in the book are good enough for the psykers we have atm.

The Chaos sigil, voxes and command voxes are also good enough in the index.

I leave militia training and discounts for vehicles out atm since i find it immensly difficult to re-evaluate what the prices are so for now i reccomend that we leave it at regular AM price without the traits that AM have.

Thoughts on that?

I'd say limit the warlord to either the commander or a Malefic lord.

- Limit command squads to two per army, it's be preferential to be able to have a back-up in case the other gets sacked in which case your infantry will likely break rank and run.

- Ogryn seem fine how they are now. That said, the Plague Ogryn should be evaluated. I'd favor giving units a keyword based on their covenant tied to the god. This keeps the plague Ogryn balanced because you'd have to give many of your units the Nurgle covenant to make them immune whereas all other units that are not part of it risk get afflicted.

- Marauders are good too, though whether they have energy weapons doesn't matter to me.

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
I'd say limit the warlord to either the commander or a Malefic lord.

- Limit command squads to two per army, it's be preferential to be able to have a back-up in case the other gets sacked in which case your infantry will likely break rank and run.

- Ogryn seem fine how they are now. That said, the Plague Ogryn should be evaluated. I'd favor giving units a keyword based on their covenant tied to the god. This keeps the plague Ogryn balanced because you'd have to give many of your units the Nurgle covenant to make them immune whereas all other units that are not part of it risk get afflicted.

- Marauders are good too, though whether they have energy weapons doesn't matter to me.

Actually if we revert back to the old random ld, which was d6+4, one squad is more then enough, however i would consider the following idea i had:

Basically you always need to pick an arch demagogue, he is in essence the profile of the renegade commander to keep it simple, and then get's affect by the devotions.

What if we let renegade commanders stay as they are, add in a aura, like reroll ones to hit in any phase. And then couple them with the limit to command squads, that would mean 1/ per demagogue and or commander you field.
At most you can field 4 squads then, and remember they are 6ppm, compared to the regular disciples which are now 5ppm.

The marauder suggestion is more to let the veterans under us, which have built marauders with energy weapons , get their unit back. Not to mention that murder cultists actually get's a use now.....

Malefic lords should be a special option if you pick the whitch demagogue, i also would lower their points to 40 pts down, like wyrdvane psykers.

What about my suggestion about Plague Ogryn?

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:


If you want to add all that crazy chaos stuff you are really making a new army so why should it get all the IG stuff?

Because the entire point of R&H is that they used to be IG but turned to Chaos. If they don't have IG units it loses the entire point of it being a faction.

I don’t buy that sorry. That is one option for renegades and heretics, the old 7th edition list made it possible to represent traitor guard and armed militia and cults. Tats what you need. Make a better save etc an option, like they used to with the military training. If the list is redone it needs to be open enough to be able to field different themes. Might be a nightmare points wise but I don’t use them so less of a worry for me.

I’m with you though on the single god thing. If a group of renegades or heretics has been turned and corrupted it is much more plausible that one of the powers is behind it. Zealous khornate cultists wouldn’t play well with hedonistic pleasure cultists. Keywords also makes sense. The current list seems a bit vanilla.

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
What about my suggestion about Plague Ogryn?

I allready stated, that the covenant also mark a unit.

last page.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:


If you want to add all that crazy chaos stuff you are really making a new army so why should it get all the IG stuff?

Because the entire point of R&H is that they used to be IG but turned to Chaos. If they don't have IG units it loses the entire point of it being a faction.

I don’t buy that sorry. That is one option for renegades and heretics, the old 7th edition list made it possible to represent traitor guard and armed militia and cults. Tats what you need. Make a better save etc an option, like they used to with the military training. If the list is redone it needs to be open enough to be able to field different themes. Might be a nightmare points wise but I don’t use them so less of a worry for me.

I’m with you though on the single god thing. If a group of renegades or heretics has been turned and corrupted it is much more plausible that one of the powers is behind it. Zealous khornate cultists wouldn’t play well with hedonistic pleasure cultists. Keywords also makes sense. The current list seems a bit vanilla.

Again, 7th allowed for mix and match or mono god forces. I am working on a remake of 7th and personally i think it is better to leave the options open like they were instead of once again going down the monogod shenanigans.

Ah sorry for the repetiveness, these threads can get very long and hard to sift thorough it all

No worries i think i will make soon a consolidation post, which then can be quoted by the Op.

Is it still feasible to have the Defiler and Decimators as unit options for the Magus devotion?

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
Is it still feasible to have the Defiler and Decimators as unit options for the Magus devotion?

Why not?

Why shouldn't it be?

Neither of those profit overly for beeing in r&h and are not going to be affected by the three test doctrines i gave them.

I don't know, i was just curious since I have no idea about any of their stats and if they are good/bad

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
I don't know, i was just curious since I have no idea about any of their stats and if they are good/bad

Decimators were once meh and are now ok, imagine a hellbrute made love to a defiler and a terminator.

The looks it get's from the terminator, the combat ability of a hellbrute and the durability and weaponry from daemon engine.
Of course a bit overpriced but a ok unit.
More of a collectors thing really that also is fun in a casual setting.

The defiler, tbh i can't remember a time were it was considered good.
It is ok for now but there is a reason you see it rarely picked in non fluff lists.
Same really with the decimators.

Be good to see if you can recapture what the 7th list did. My R+H have sat idle for too long. No desire to work on them as the current list seems very dull. I like the brood brothers lidea for including guard units or even legion ones. Are you planning on making a pdf index? As in file not defence force.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Regarding covenants, I get the no hard locks on mono god stuff but as I play power level will you be factoring the covenants into that? Should they not be compulsory, as in each unit must have one but you pick which? And will it affect keywords?

Andykp wrote:
Be good to see if you can recapture what the 7th list did. My R+H have sat idle for too long. No desire to work on them as the current list seems very dull. I like the brood brothers lidea for including guard units or even legion ones. Are you planning on making a pdf index? As in file not defence force.

PDF, publicly, if I get enough people together that agree with what I am suggesting an playtesting here i will also publicly contact gw.
I feel after i work out some kinks with the warlord traits aswell as the Master of the horde and Mutant overlord, i could basically upload a first Version.

I got lucky insofar that i mostly proxied, a friend bought me the book at the time but as a Student i was broke so not many fw models for me.
I still managed to get 10 or so matches in before the whole formation bs started, this is also the reason why i am not going to add in the artillery tyrant or the unending host.

Now I would have had the money but gw killed them off, so I went to anvil, anyways the result you can see in my sig.

I personally want to conserve as much as possible whilest still bringing the core of the list up to par with what is now standart.

I will also state that the goal for me personally is not even to make a good army but rather bring back the fluffy, in multiple ways playable faction we were.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Regarding covenants, I get the no hard locks on mono god stuff but as I play power level will you be factoring the covenants into that? Should they not be compulsory, as in each unit must have one but you pick which? And will it affect keywords?

I kinda think pl would turn this into a huge task.

Add to that that i literally have no experience with it since i never played it.

As for the requirement, no, you can chose to not get units covenants. Infact i will also once again gate marauders behind a non covenant arch demagogue.

As for when you chose a covenant, yes you will get the key word for the god your covenant is from.
This mainly has to do with the broken interaction of Plague ogryns and the nurgle keyword requirement for when they blow up though.

I will also implement probably a rule like broodbrothers that halfes the cp gain for r&h detachments if you don't field them as your warlords detachment.

So far it's shaping up to allow R&H to actually be something. Competitive? Not really, but playable.

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
So far it's shaping up to allow R&H to actually be something. Competitive? Not really, but playable.

Playable again, a solid midtier is the aim.
And also of course "Make renegades options great again and not just restricted murderhobos"





Yes you can quote me on that if you talk to gw about the index lists.

There are a few minute details that still need to be changed. For example, the Mutant Overlord is supposed to have access to a Spined Chaos Beast, but those went OOP long ago and are hard to find. Is there something else we can have to add as an "or" option?

Just a note here, I've seen a lot of push from posters in this thread that R & H should have either most or even all of the guard options and then chaos stuff on top of that. That just doesn't work from a game design stand point unless they are going to be priced as more expensive that their loyalist equivalent and that just doesn't jive with a lot of their fluff.

Traitors should be a bit more rag tag because they don't have access to the massive supply chain that the IOM has. I'm not entirely sure in game how this should be represented but they have to give up something.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Just a note here, I've seen a lot of push from posters in this thread that R & H should have either most or even all of the guard options and then chaos stuff on top of that. That just doesn't work from a game design stand point unless they are going to be priced as more expensive that their loyalist equivalent and that just doesn't jive with a lot of their fluff.

Traitors should be a bit more rag tag because they don't have access to the massive supply chain that the IOM has. I'm not entirely sure in game how this should be represented but they have to give up something.

Actually we're going more with the IA13 rules that allow a few specific units from the chaos faction to be used based on which devotion your warlord takes.