Sororitas Update Feedback

[Zaemie]

Presumably, from the way you've described Martyrdom working this rule is added to all Sisters Superior.

 

Perhaps the Simulacrum could be treated as a Martyr point only for the unit carrying it.

[BitsHammer]

Sororitas characters would have Martyrdom, yeah. Thing is by making a Simalacrum as a point every unit effectively doubless their point count if used properly. As the most recent draft of AoF is Army wide at the start of the game turn the count can't really be limited.

 

And limitingnit to single units creates extra bookkeeping. Fluffy or not, too much bookkeeping is a detriment, not a boon to the army.

 

Biggest thing that I (hope) to do is get the Superiors balanced out so you want to have them on the table but if they die you don't feel like you completely lost points.

[Servant of Dante]

Simulacrum would likely be reroll morale checks or a reroll for SoF while alive. Though counting as a martyr while alive does make things interesting as in theory you could have 4 units, kill the superiors and get the 8+ benefit...

 

Which means that it probably shouldn't be an option.

 

And Sisters have always been a little like that. In 3rd losing certain models gained you Faith points.

 

And let's be honest, in low point games you shouldn't need that level of buffing (much like the Cogheads don't need 8 units to pull canticles of the highest level off at that level). It's more scaling the Army for apoc or larger games than not leaving it with any bonuses for bigger games.

I did say I meant that the Simulacrum would NOT allow a unit to contribute 2 points when their Superior died.

 

Yes, the Martyrdom rules of 3E are basically what you are using.

 

The thing is, the buffs for 1-3 are incredibly lackluster, especially for something that can be used once per game. Yes, it affects the entire army, but only a portion of your units will really benefit. This is why I like the unit by unit activation of AoFs

 

We are worried that using a roll to activate the AoFs creates bad game play, but I really enjoy the uncertainty. It seems necessary to really convey the flavor of the rules. When units can activate AoFs multiple times per game, say, under the faith point system of 3E, it allows the rules designer to make the AoFs hit and miss.

 

The once per game autoactivate ones you have written just don't do much for me. Their bonuses seem rather uninteresting.

 

Oh, I really have no idea where to go with this. I understand the flaws you are all pointing out.

 

In the spirit of keeping the automatic activation theme, could we perhaps have just 1 unit benefit? That way, the benefit could be larger, while still being limited enough to allow for automatic activation. Maybe you can activate a second AoF once you reach a certain Martyrdom threshold.

 

Or maybe go back to the Faith Point system, but don't give out any/so many points at the beginning of the game, make Martyrdom the primary source. Activation could be automatic, and you could even charge multiple points for certain AoFs. All this could be combined with your brilliant staged AoF scheme . . . I'm liking this one, myself.

 

 . . . I'll have to revisit this tomorrow when I'm more awake to see if any of this dribble is worth further development.

[BitsHammer]

Go back and look at canticles, the low level buffs are -supposed- to be weak.

 

Reverse Canticles was the idea and that's -exactly- what this is.

 

On a different note the idea of servitor horses crossed my mind today and I've been going over the Sororitas FOC to try and get a feel for how the army should lay out (to include some additions). I'll likely post that list later.

[Servant of Dante]

I've come to the conclusion that I'm just not going to be happy with an army-wide AoF. The effect will either be rather lackluster/uninteresting and automatic, or (Even worse) hit and miss while having a large effect.

 

So, what exactly is wrong with the current AoF system? Seeing the modified Doctine Imperitives makes me miss the current system. I really like Fulkes's original re-write of the AoFs that varied by unit, and scaled with the army's Martyrdom total.

 

Even the codex AoFs as-written are way more fun for me that the "Mechanicus AoFs" we are discussing currently.

Your original idea for the AoFs is far and away my favorite.

[Servant of Dante]

Go back and look at canticles, the low level buffs are -supposed- to be weak.

 

Reverse Canticles was the idea and that's -exactly- what this is.

 

On a different note the idea of servitor horses crossed my mind today and I've been going over the Sororitas FOC to try and get a feel for how the army should lay out (to include some additions). I'll likely post that list later.

EDIT: Frak me. I was thinking "ONCE PER GAME" when you have clearly written "ONCE PER GAME TURN" sorry. I'm not familiar with the canticles you have based this system on. Guess I should learn to read.

 

In almost any game I am playing I will be practically tabled by the time I lose 4 superiors. The mecanicus canticles look at units on the board, right? We are essentially looking at units that are damaged/off the board. It's a lot easier to start the game with the threshold number of units than it is to have the threshold number of superiors die. And even when you do, you have less things to benefit.

 

The Mechanicus scales something like "More units = bigger buff for more models" the reverse canticles read something like "more martyrs = bigger buff for fewer models" so I think you can afford to lower the threshold numbers a bit.

 

Could the threshold for the second tier be 3 dead superiors? Like I said, even if I do hit that 4 threshold, I'm not going to have much left on the board to appreciate it.

[BitsHammer]

The thresholds also tie into game scalability too.

 

And you are very fixated on the 1500 point level and excluding everything else in that. :/

[Servant of Dante]

The thresholds also tie into game scalability too.

 

And you are very fixated on the 1500 point level and excluding everything else in that. :/

Don't most game happen somewhere between 1000 and 2000 points? I've played a few 3000 point games. I guess I could see losing 4 superiors there and still having a good number of models left.

 

And yes, 1500 points is the number I play most games at. I thought that was rather normal.

 

Oh, fine. I give. Your design makes sense, I just know I'll very rarely get to have the larger benefits, which isn't really a concern from a design standpoint.

[BitsHammer]

All Sororitas characters will have the Martyrdom rule. So not just superiors.

 

Adjusting the scale a bit (0-2, 3-5, 6+) isn't unreasonable, but we can't focus solely on balancing around 1500 points. The game just can't work effectively if we forgo other levels so making the arguement based on that Army size is a fallacy.

[Spacefrisian]

The combat shield on that Examplar unit is more of a appearance thing, makes it look more "knightly", maybe it could be reworked in a new Sororitas item making it a piece of gear that makes the Shield of faith rule be better in some way, 5+ inv save or re-roll on original inv save, or both.

[BitsHammer]

"Faithful" already buffs SoF in both saves and denying the witch rolls.

 

Maybe re-roll failed armour saves for shields?

[ValourousHeart]

While I do like the three levels of faith, I am not expecting my opponents to be very receptive.

We should probably limit it to 2 levels with the first level being on a 2+ or 3+ and the second level being on a 6+ or 7+.

Unfortunately if GW makes something complicated, the player base is willing to accept it.

But they are not willing to accept something fan made if it is complicated.

 

We should also tie the martyr mechanic at the squad level, which would clear up any record keeping.

You would just need to check to see if a model is present or not at the test, to determine the bonus.

 

You could have the characters and the simulacrum do 1 thing while alive and a different thing when they die.

 

So for example the superior could give the unit a reroll to the faith test while alive and a +1 to the roll when dead.

The Simulacrum could give +1 when alive and hatred or rage when dead.

Seraphim superior could count as both a superior and a simulacrum.

The Canoness could give a +1 to units within a certain distance of her while alive, and the entire army gets something else when she dies.

 

 

Something else that might be interesting is basing the faith system off of the AoS magic system.

In AoS each wizard knows 3 spells, 2 that every wizard knows and then a signature spell.

We could have 1-2 acts of faith that every unit knows and then a specific one to each unit.

That could give flexibility without the need for multiple levels for each act of faith, which again simplifies the system.

[Teetengee]

I have thoughts, but I must think more on them to make them make sense.

Still, I really like the reverse canticle thing, and am glad you are trying to work it out.

Right now I think there might be too much overlap.

[BitsHammer]

I'm getting a serious feeling of "too many cooks" on the Acts of Faith here.

 

I'm going to let some thoughts simmer and see if anything worthwhile falls out.

[Servant of Dante]

I'm getting a serious feeling of "too many cooks" on the Acts of Faith here.

 

I'm going to let some thoughts simmer and see if anything worthwhile falls out.

Sorry once again if I've bothered anyone. Fulkes, you are probably right with what you have. This is YOUR project.

[BitsHammer]

It just seems like every idea is being quadruple guessed with multiple conflicting ideas.

[ValourousHeart]

My apologies, I thought the conversation was a brainstorming thread.

[Servant of Dante]

It just seems like every idea is being quadruple guessed with multiple conflicting ideas.

Sorry about that. I will say you have been able to convince me you are right on all counts

[Teetengee]

I definitely think you are headed in the right direction. I'm just not sure how best to do it.

You might want just to grant rules as units die.
something like:
x gone: crusader

2x gone: hatred

3x gone: zealot

4x gone: rage

5x gone relentless

(where x is maybe 15% or maybe 1-2 martyrdom characters, or whatever you think is appropriate)

A bit like power from pain but keyed to losses rather than turns.

[BitsHammer]

My apologies, I thought the conversation was a brainstorming thread.

It is to a point but when I meet expectations of one idea only to be shouted down I do take it a little personally.

[BitsHammer]

I definitely think you are headed in the right direction. I'm just not sure how best to do it.

 

You might want just to grant rules as units die.

something like:

x gone: crusader

2x gone: hatred

3x gone: zealot

4x gone: rage

5x gone relentless

 

(where x is maybe 15% or maybe 1-2 martyrdom characters, or whatever you think is appropriate)

 

A bit like power from pain but keyed to losses rather than turns.

So an inverse 5th Ed version?

 

Honestly that feels fairly limited in scope. But I may just need some more time to puzzle over the whole ruleset and try to lay down something that fits it better.

[Servant of Dante]

 

My apologies, I thought the conversation was a brainstorming thread.

It is to a point but when I meet expectations of one idea only to be shouted down I do take it a little personally.

 

I know what you mean. I guess I assumed most people didn't take me as seriously as I take them.

 

You have explained your concept well, and I probably would have gotten it sooner, if I had bothered to read. I really am sorry for being so unpleasant. Not my intent, but it's clear to me that I was a bit out of line.

[ValourousHeart]

My apologies, I thought the conversation was a brainstorming thread.

It is to a point but when I meet expectations of one idea only to be shouted down I do take it a little personally.

Sorry I had the volume on my speakers turned down... so I missed the shouting.

Don't take it personally, this is the internet, it is full of a billion people talking, no one listening, and that nasty little troll voice you hear is inside your own head.

You have some good ideas, but from a social engineering perspective, I stand by my comment earlier that complicated rules in a bound tome from a publishing company are far more readily accepted than complicated rules printed off the internet.

So the more you plagiarize from GW the more likely your rules are to be accepted.

Now I am completely unfamiliar with these Admech rules you are basing this off of, so I have some reading to do this weekend.

[Spacefrisian]

You might also attempt finding some video batreps on those Admech things in actions, vids make it very clear. WindterSeo or Tabletop tactics give a very clear picture how it works imo.

[Teetengee]

It just seems like every idea is being quadruple guessed with multiple conflicting ideas.

I want to point out, that for this kind of thing, that is really really positive. It means that people care enough about what you are doing to help you see it through, and that they think your ideas have enough merit that there is something to be made of them.

 

To keep everyone happy, (and perhaps more importantly to maximize the quality of whatever you produce) I would suggest you go through every suggestion and put together a reason you are going to use it (if you are) or you are not (if you are not) and communicate that here. The act of figuring out why you think those suggestions would be good or bad to implement will help massively in figuring out the best way to proceed, as it will also let you critically analyze why you are doing the things you are doing too.

 

To be honest, I would kill to have the input you are getting here for my chaos homebrew thread, as the more people I am bouncing ideas off of, the more I know I am not just creating something with very limited appeal.