Legion Traits: An effort to reflect different Warbands

[Ammonius]

I would rather represent them with more accurate blast attaks (like d6 scatter instead of 2d6). But chaos has no real artillery to make us of that rule.

 

Also, compard the black legion traits to the iron warrior traits. I like the black legion one alot, but the iw one feels lacklustre compared.

 

Edit: just read reply of scribe. I like the masters of mechanisms, maybe not wit iwnd AND stubborn. Keep stubborn, get rid of iwnd.

How about something like this:

 

Iron Warriors: Commandeer: One Iron Warriors Character in base contact with a unit (that has not fired yet this turn) armed with a weapon with the "blast" type can fire it (using the character's BS) instead of his own weapon, following the normal rules for shooting. The unit may not then fire on its own this turn if it has been fired in this way.

 

Basically, it's the rules for gun emplacements. The big decision though is whether or not to make it "Unit on the same side" or not. As written, the IW character could fire the weapons of allies (because the cinematic image is a Lord waving away the crew of a basilisk and heaving in the shell himself) but also could Commandeer an enemy weapon (so long as it had blast). What's the balanced approach?

[Hellrender]

I like. I would definetly like to see an Iron Warrior lord barking at some slacking traitor guard, shoveling/pummeling them away to take over the gun to show hows its done. Maybe put a limit on it though, like only 1 turn per type of emplacement (ala obliterators)

[Hellrender]

Nop. I like them. With the current dex actually very decent. Makes csm much more attractive.

[Scribe]

Commandeer is cool, but should it replace whats already there? Personally (of course) I find the current 2 much more in character and archetypal, the impact of Commandeer in our own list would be minimal (+1BS) while limiting both units ability to spread out and affect change upon the battle.

 

Any thoughts on the Warlord traits? Way OP as I kind of secretly or openly think they are? :p

[Rain]

The Warlord traits are indeed way OP. That said, Chaos really should have very powerful characters, I don't play WFB but I'm under the impression that Chaos Lords and Vampire Counts are basically the best HtH characters in the game, which makes a lot of sense since what's the point of selling your soul to Chaos and obtaining centuries or eons of experience if you don't get any increase in personal power. That should actually be the whole point, loyalists should have better/more advanced tech like plasma cannons/land speeders/redeemers etc, and traitors should have veteran skills, demonic gifts, and considerably more powerful characters to compensate. That's flavorful and distinct, so you know what, I for one like your OP traits. Not that GW would agree =/

[Scribe]

Actually a game of Fantasy (and indeed my understanding matches yours in terms of what a Chaos Lord in fantasy is) is what what made me go for those traits, and a side glance at the Daemon Traits. Again, basic concept of CSM to me is a face smash army. They should, as in Fantasy, and what this book seems to try and be, an assault first, shoot second list. Thats just my bias, as evident in my army choices and user name. :]

 

1. Unrelenting Soul - The Warlord is infused with the power of Chaos and gains the Eternal Warrior rule.

Stronger than the closest Black Legion trait, so maybe we just drop this down to IWND, or 'Once Per Game, gain Eternal Warrior until your next turn.'

 

2. World Ender - The Warlord has both Fleshbane, and Armour Bane rules. In addition, all of the Warlords attacks are AP2.

Daemons have a Trait that is Instant Death, while Black Legion has Instant Death on 6's. This was in my thinking similar but different.

 

3. Trophy Taker - Your Army gains 1 Victory Point for each enemy character slain by your Warlord in a Challenge.

Core Personal Warlord Trait

 

4. Immovable Object - Your Warlord is a Scoring unit.

Core Personal Warlord Trait

 

5. Siphon Soul - Once per game, as Per Psychic Shriek cast by a Mastery Level 3 Psyker, however roll 2D6+6, instead of 3D6 when determining the level to compare to the Targets Leadership.

Should I just nerf this down to be a once per game Psychic Shriek? Yeah lets do that...

 

6. Praetor - At the start of the Player turn, the Warlord selects one rule that applies to itself and any unit it joins. Select from Furious Charge, Tank Hunters, Relentless, Hammer of Wrath, Move Through Cover, Smash

This is a take on Logan Grimnar. If I have fought across time and space, I should have gained some tactical acumen. :]

 

So are the powers OP, or is the list as a whole OP?

 

If its just a few powers (1 and 2) I am thinking 1 goes down to 'Once per game, gain EW until your next turn' and 2 goes down to 'Your Warlords Melee attacks gain Fleshbane and Armourbane.'

[Rain]

Nah, I just thought it was powerful relative to what most warlord traits (on non-SC) are. Oh and I wasn't really referring to Trophy Taker and Immovable Object obviously those are par for the course. AP2 is better than instant death in my opinion, a lot better actually. Even against say a SM character with artificer armor and iron halo, say you are comparing AP3 + ID vs. AP2 --> with AP3 + ID you expect to kill with 1/6 of your wounds, with AP2 you expect to take off a wound with 1/2 of your wounds, and you need 3 wounds to kill so in both cases you are expecting to need to inflict 6 wounds to kill such a character. BUT AP2 also allows you to bypass the 2+ armor of single wound models against whom ID is utterly useless. Oh and AP2 is not entirely nullified by a USR.

 

I don't know, to be honest I'm not a huge fan of Warlord traits to begin with, I hate the random element of it, just as I hate the random element of the Eye of the Gods table, you can't build a unit or an army around randomness, and it robs you of the RPG element of "this is my character and he has such and such items and abilities".

[Kol Saresk]

Question about the Iron Warriors: Shoul the Steel Brethren's lack of siege tactics be taken into account? I ask because they are an Iron Warrior splinter warband that specializes in orbital drop pod assaults, not siege tactics. So, should "siege specialists" still be applied to them?

[Scribe]

Since we dont get drop pods at all? I question how that can be their specialty if they are CSM, otherwise I have to assume they are very freshly turned Renegades, perhaps they even consider themselves loyal.

That said.

And I quote.

"The Steel Brethren, also known as the Steel Brotherhood, are a warband of Chaos Space Marines drawn from the Iron Warriors Traitor Legion. They have been noted to make extensive use of gunship transports and Drop Pods in their planetary assaults. The Steel Brethren, like all warbands of the Iron Warriors, possess extraordinary skill and experience in siege warfare."

I believe I understand your point though, veiled as it may be, unfortunately nothing is going to solve for every scenario unless you literally get to build unit by unit by unit, and we wont see its like (3.5) again...

[Kol Saresk]

The only point was "this is a warband of the Legion that no longer follows the Legion's doctrine on warfare." So, should they benefit from that doctrine of warfare they do not follow even if they share gene-seed and ideology?

[Scribe]

Yet the book says they do still, despite further specialization (hey lets say they all dig the mark of khorne) they still, follow Iron Warrior traits or specialties, or whatever we want to call them.

 

I didnt troll you, but if I came across as such I apologize, I saw a fairly random example of something that the current book (nay any CSM book) would fail to reflect so responded without fully understanding what your point was with that specific example, as a quick lookup calls out that they do follow your stereotypical IW feel.

 

I am looking for your feedback, and as I mentioned it cannot be a catch all, as the base book is shallow, so there is only so much we can do.

 

So, I apologize.

 

---

 

In short, yes, that Warband would still get the benefits. Any warband would still lay claim to their 'parent' otherwise, could be ran as pure CSM, or whatever ruleset seems most appropriate. This is after all, an attempt at a '2 pages of rules' supplement, not a full blown codex.

 

I run my Night Lords, as Blood Angels, for the record.

 

EDIT: Adding a further disclaimer that this is not intended to be a catch all, or even codex level replacement, but instead a supplement, of Legion, or Archetype based traits that would apply across a Detachment.

[Hellrender]

I think also, that even though it is called Iron Warrior siege tactics, and you want to play a warband, with a parent legion Iron Warriors, but your tactics of that warband dont match up.. Then play them like a different legion that better reflects what your warband is about.

[Scribe]

Exactly. Without a system that is completely wide open (which is nearly unmanageable so claims GW) a 'best fit' system would seem to work best. Khorne knows, MEQ is MEQ.

[the jeske]

The only point was "this is a warband of the Legion that no longer follows the Legion's doctrine on warfare." So, should they benefit from that doctrine of warfare they do not follow even if they share gene-seed and ideology?

The no longer follows the legion doctrine on warfare part is stupid . How are DG or 1ksons or WE suppose to change their legion doctrine of fighting . Berzerkers sneaking up on to the enemy , fast moving DG or how about forward scout 1ksons ?

 

Also steel bretherns drop pod insartion were part of siege craft used by IW , they were suppose to take drop on fire points , counter artilery positions etc.