8th Edition Legiones Astartes (29/06: I - XX)

[Jensvdb]

Imperial Fists:

 

The Bitter End:

 

either: In Missions where the Deployment-Zone is chosen randomly the opponent may select the deploment instead of rolling a dice

or: In Missions where the game is at random length the opponent may choose to go 6 full turns instead of rolling randomly

[Kais Klip]

I actually really like the first proposal, Jensvdb. Neat way of representing both the VIIth and the IVth predilection for assaulting tough positions. 

[Kais Klip]

 

Apologist: I actually really like your proposal, care to get us started on Legion Unique command abilities? I really enjoyed what 40k did with combat doctrines, however I did think it was a waste that they were only one-use. The difficulty comes in making things different to the Guard order system, but I don't see how that would be a problem if each legion had a few unique "call-in" abilities. 

 

Effectively, my suggestion is to get rid of the Legion specific rules, in line with 8th's simple, clean approach to special rules, and replace them with a far more extensive list of Command Abilities, which effectively replicate them.

 

This may sound a bit pointless, but the advantage is that you can then use the built-in points cost to balance them, and to encourage the taking of certain units.

 

So, for example, take two sample armies. The first is an Emperor's Children, the second Iron Warriors. Both forces are identical aside from the <Legion> keywords, but would have access to their own list of Command Abilities.

 

To take Kais Klip's suggestions as examples; the Emperor's Children list includes:

Flawless Execution (1CP): This unit makes a 4" consolidation move, instead of 3". 

Martial Pride (3CP): Once per turn, you may consecutively activate a second, different unit to fight before your opponent. 

 

The 'meh' and 'OP?' concerns Klip himself noted can be ameliorated with pricing.

 

Similarly for the Iron Warriors:

Wrack: (1CP): This unit automatically passes battleshock tests if any casualties were caused by shooting this turn.

Ruin: (1CP): Grenades used by this unit can re-roll to wound against units with keyword 'vehicle' or 'structure'.

 

Negative ones would be additional, cheap options for the opponent:

To the Bitter End (1CP): You may extend the game by one turn (to a maximum of X).

 

+ Hold on, that makes my army worse! +

Yes, changing automatic stuff – like Wrack & Ruin's auto-passing morale checks from shooting – to paid-for effects seems to be a downgrade. I believe that it would give three advantages to make up for this:

1) It gives you the choice when your troops do something exceptional; and allows for big cinematic actions by spending lots of CP.

2) It creates an additional level of tactical complexity while reducing complication (i.e. there's no need for you or your opponent to remember unit special rules).

3) Army structure can be guided by access to CP.

 

+ Theoretical +

On this third point, it allows the Force Organisation charts to replace Rites of War; simplifying things and making them less restrictive. This way, you can take a Recon Company as currently envisioned – getting a big CP bonus if you take three Recon Squads, for example – or you can sacrifice a lot of CPs by adding in things you don't want (like the single option Force Org in the main rules of 8th, that reduces your CP total by -1)

 

On a smaller level, it allows you to encourage use of characterful units – taking a Legion Tactical Squad would provide 2CPs, making it full-size would provide a further 2CPs. Taking the more rare or unusual units wouldn't: reflecting the fact that the army is less familiar with them. This would encourage the use of armies as they're shown in the background – lots of troops, for example – without penalising exceptional cases.

 

As an example, jetbikes might provide +1CP when taken as a choice in a normal army, but in a Sky Hunter Phalanx, they'd provide +2CP per choice. In an Iron Warriors Ironfire Force org, they might be -1CP; while in a White Scars Chogorian Brotherhood Force org, they might be +6CP if all troops choices are filled with them (on top of the basic +1CP you get for taking them.

 

This is especially helpful for balancing Legion specific units. Ultramarine Suzereins are a popular choice, so you might make them provide just 1CP (or even 0CP); while Locutarus squads are less popular, so you might make them provide 2CP.

 

 

+ Practical +

Some Legion/unit specific rules are easy to translate across, while others require a bit more forethought. However, the additional palette of 'rules crunch' this opens up is very useful.

 

To summarise, the use of Command Abilities would replace both the Legion-specific rules and the Rites of War rules. It could even replace and simplify a lot of the unit-specific rules.

 

As an illustration, taking Emperor's Children as your army would give you:

• Basic Command Abilities – the standard ones available to all Legions.
• Legion-specific Command Abilities – those available to the Emperor's Children, mainly based on existing Leigon special rules
• If you select your army from the Maru Skara (currently a Legion specific Rite of War) Force Organisation chart, you would have access to further Command Abilities unique to that.
• If you select your army from the Pride of the Legion Force Organisation chart, you would have access to further Command Abilities unique to that.

Kais Klip's list of Command Abilities is a great example of additional options that can either be built into the Legion-specific options, or the Force Org options.

 

To take another example, the Alpha Legion now no longer need a relatively clunky mechanic to use other Legions' stuff – instead, they might now have access to other Legions' units more generally – but with a hefty negative CP modifier, meaning that they're less effective on the field owing to a low number of CPs to actually use.

 

A Force Org specific to the Alpha Legion might give them access to loads of unique Command Abilities; so if you want to take a pure Alpha Legion force (rather than relying on a gimmick), you get rewarded for it.

 

Another Force Org might mean that they lose all their unique Command Abilities, and instead have the option of using the other Legions Command Abilities at a slight increase in cost.

 

 

+ Summary +

Basically, strip out all the unit and Legion special rules, and replace them with a real sense of Command and Control by providing CPs liberally through army selection, but forcing players to use them to gain the benefits. I believe this would make the Legions simultaneously more similar and more characterful. 

 

Picture the armies we mentioned earlier fighting. Currently, the Iron Warriors rules means that the IVth simply don't flee from shooting. My proposed change would mean that they won't flee from shooting, but only as long as you're prepared (or able) to spend your 'Legion resources'. This adds an additional level of granularity and tactical choice, as well as simulating the fatigue of war: 

 

If, by the end of the game, the Emperor's Children have been able to deplete the Iron Warrior commanders' reserve (by forcing him to do stuff), the Iron Warriors will potentially lose even their iron nerve and flee from shooting. Similarly, if the Emperor's Children over-reach themselves, they'll not have sufficient CP at the end of the game to keep up their relentless speed.

 

Perhaps the Emperor's Children player decides not to use their Legion-specific choices, instead relying on the tried-and-true options of the basic CP list – giving a rather neat way of playing Unification Wars/pre-Primarch games without any additional work or effort. 

 

So, there's my proposal – I realise it's a different direction, and would require quite a bit of work. I do think that starting from a clean slate would better reflect the changes and philosophy of 8th by making the game simpler, and giving players back the power to make decisions, rather than relying on the exceptionalism of their army list. It would also give Age of Darkness games an additional levels of depth and interest without adding complication or demanding the opponent's familiarity, resulting in a fairer game that better reflects the background.

 

 

The problem I'd envision with relegating a Legion's theme entirely to the Legion Stratagem function is that Stratagem's are not permitted to be utilized consecutively. So your Legion's theme, as it were, would only shine through half of the game. Legion theme is something I believe should feature heavily in your game, and I believe FW would agree, given the Legion-power-creep we witnessed after the First book (where they were rare occurrences). I would also like to still be able to distinguish Legions without legion-specific units or abilities given by force organisation; a legion's mindset should be evident in its rank-and-file, as it were. 

 

To that end, I'm proposing we keep a very fundamental, stripped down passive ability in each legion, while embracing your idea of conveying Legion character primarily through Stratagem execution. I've attempted to do so with the Emperor's Children and the World Eaters as you will see in my first post; are those passive abilities minimal enough for you? 

 

Would you also agree that we keep the available choice of Command stratagems to a manageable number, say six in total? That should account for a number of Legion specific ones, the number provided by the mission, and one provided by a "Rite of War".

[jaxom]

 

The problem I'd envision with relegating a Legion's theme entirely to the Legion Stratagem function is that Stratagem's are not permitted to be utilized consecutively....

 

To that end, I'm proposing we keep a very fundamental, stripped down passive ability in each legion, while embracing your idea of conveying Legion character primarily through Stratagem execution....

 

Would you also agree that we keep the available choice of Command stratagems to a manageable number, say six in total? That should account for a number of Legion specific ones, the number provided by the mission, and one provided by a "Rite of War".

 

 

A simple rules change that Legion Stratagems can be use consecutively would fix the first problem, but I think an earlier comment about the nature each legion means that what you're proposing is better. Harlequin's get flip-belts, Orks get Waaagh!, and Salamanders get burninating, as it were.

 

I agree that six is a decent number of Stratagems, but there's also the three default ones. Looking at the various Rites of War, I think 2-3 Stratagems per would allow for copying themes. Then one for each legion and that's 3-4 plus the three default and whatever else a mission gives. It's hard for me to tell how many is too many per game because while I just haven't stress tested myself or seen others stress test how many they can keep track of (I imagine tokens and markers are going to be a large modeling opportunity once Codex specific stratagems come around). The way I'm seeing this is that an army can only contain one Rite of War regardless of the number of detachments.

 

For example:

Ravenwing Protocol

Outrider Detachment Variant (1-2 HQ, 3-6 Fast Attack, 0-3 Troops, 0-2 Elites, 0-2 Heavy Support, 0-2 Flyers, +1 Command Point)

Search & Destroy (X CP): Models with the Flyer keyword can move off the board during the Movement phase and then be deployed from the table edge they left [insert new Outflank boilerplate] at the end of the player's next movement phase.

Hunt Them Down (X CP): An opponent's unit cannot Flee.

On Raven Wings: Units with the Infantry keyword must begin the game deployed in a transport with the Fly keyword that has sufficient capacity to carry them. Vehicles in the detachment must have the Fly keyword. The army may not include Fortifications or detachments containing units without the Dark Angel keyword.

 

 

Iron Knights is thematically covered by the Outrider Detachment. The Knights Commander rule is thematically unnecessary because of the changed LA(Dark Angels). Scour the Land seemed out of place and should probably be shifted over, somehow, to Dreadwing characters. 

 

EDIT: Put in the optional components of Outrider Detachment.

Edited June 8, 2017 by jaxom

[Gorgoff]

You guys are getting WAY to complex with your made up rules for 8th edition.

Plus one this, plus one that.

Re-roll this, re-roll that.

THAT's the kind of complexity you can hope for now. ;) Remember that those rules now have to fit in unit cards or into very small paragraphs so nobody gets scared. :D

I love the pure energy you guys put into that though. Just... keep it simple.

Edited June 8, 2017 by Gorgoff

[Withershadow]

Alpha Legion special rules

You Win - at the end of the battle, compute victory points, objectives, and all other victory conditions.  Discard your results, and declare Alpha Legion player the winner, because both opponents were Alpha Legion to begin with and this was just a false flag training exercise.

[Kais Klip]

You guys are getting WAY to complex with your made up rules for 8th edition.

Plus one this, plus one that.

Re-roll this, re-roll that.

THAT's the kind of complexity you can hope for now. Remember that those rules now have to fit in unit cards or into very small paragraphs so nobody gets scared.

I love the pure energy you guys put into that though. Just... keep it simple.

 

I'm definitely aware of that on my end. To be honest most of Apologist's stuff leaves me bambazzalled for now, that's why I haven't even touched it for the OP edit. A few more rounds of going over it perhaps, and I'm sure its just a case of sorting this stuff out into a neat tidy presentation and it'll all make sense. 

 

Rite of Wars were always the wall of texts in the FW rules, I think +1/-1 stuff is actually a step forward in simplifying it; we just need a clear formula and ratio to replace all the "must take this and not that". 

[Aeternus]

 

*snip*

 

Night Lords

A Talent for Murder: Units with this rule gain +1 To Wound enemy Infantry units during Combat if they outnumber the engaged enemy unit. 

Nostraman Blood: Units with this rule gain +1" Movement when Fleeing. After Fleeing, a unit with this rule may choose to immediately take a Morale check to act normally during the rest of the player's turn. The check has a -1 penalty for each enemy unit within 6".

Night Vision: When using the Night Vision strategem on a unit in a detachment with a majority of Night Lord units, roll a d6. On a 4+ reduce the number of Command Points spent by one.

From the Shadows: Units with this rule have +1 to their save for the first game turn (this counts as cover for the purpose of other rules).

Seeds of Dissent: If a Night Lord Character is slain, each Night Lord unit in the same detachment must make a Morale check during the Morale phase.

 

*snip*

 

While I think these are a good almost straight conversion of the current NL rules, I'm confused about the 'Morale checks'. I was under the impression that morale checks as a thing were now straight up replaced by Battleshock, (d6 + casualties that turn). If that is the case, for Seeds of Dissent when they take their morale check if they took no casualties then unless there is a legion unit with ld5, surely the morale check wouldn't affect them at all, and if they did take casualties they'd suffer battleshock then anyway. Therefore it really having no difference to the game.

 

Equally, for Nostraman Blood do they take 'battleshock' to act normally, (for examples sake say they lose 1 man), then have to take it again later that turn (counting casualties lost from previous battleshock) in the designated morale phase.

 

My suggestions for Nostraman Blood may be to trim the latter part or change it, and for Seeds of Dissent either impose a -1 ld to NL units for the rest of the game, or for that turn any units (or any units without characters) suffer double casualties from Battleshock.

 

Also, just out of interest for A Talent for Murder, was removing the -1 to hit intentional? (Equally a little suggestion for that may be against units without the <vehicle> keyword due to the propensity of creatures and like it was used against - looking at you Castellax).

 

Sorry if this comes off a little...judgemental. Just wanted to check your reasoning for some things

[Kais Klip]

I hadn't gotten to working over jaxom's suggestions for a night lords; don't worry, judgemental is exactly what I'm looking for. Yes, the morale bits need to be replaced with battle shock. What I particularly wanted to do, and could use your input on, is how to represent Nostraman blood. I was thinking of allowing NL units to double their move distance when falling back, and label it Into the Night or something.

 

Since I haven't come across pinning yet in 8th, we also need an identical 8th ed equivalent to their Warlord death; I was considering D3 Mortal wounds to each unit perhaps, but that may be to extreme.

 

I am, of course, planning to include bonuses both to hit and to wound, though changing it crucially; it will be a bonus to strength, rather than a bonus on the roll to Wound, the same as it will be for BA.

 

I would actually appreciate you having a crack at the legion rules while you're at it, maybe a spicy alternative to a Talent for Murder. Do take a look into my Night Lord stratagem suggestions half way on Page 1. If you could add some alternatives that would be swell.

[apologist]

I had a little play around converting the Troops over to the new style.

 

 

...anyway, having had a little try with the 'Stratagems do everything' approach, I'm not sure that'll work – so happy to eat my words

 

Nevertheless, I think folding the Rites of War into Force Org charts could work well. Fundamentally, my premise is to simplify things – hence why I advocated getting rid of unit special rules where possible. 

 

However, given that there are still army special rules that activate with the keyword, then I should just get with the programme and lend my back to that approach. 

 

Finding the balance between army special rules and simplifying things is the important thing. I think it's entirely appropriate that some armies should get very little that differentiates them from the basic Legion model – there's no need for 'rules for rules sake'.

 

+ On specifics +

I would have thought Nostroman Blood could be adequately represented simply by saying that Night Lords always make Battleshock tests against the lowest LD in the unit. As well as representing them paying less attention to their officers (and not being affected when they're killed), which fits nicely background-wise, it's easy to remember.

 

More broadly, the Night Lords discussion is a good example of what I mean by rules for rules sake. Having five separate special rules to remember – most of which only affect things in edge cases – is not desirable for a streamlined, 8th-ed style design. Not sure what the solution would be, though...

Edited June 8, 2017 by Apologist

[Slips]

Apologist, I know that those profiles are first drafts but I'm strongly against using the Primaris Marines stats (2W) and Boltgun (30", Ap-1) for our standard marines.

 

Otherwise, add the rules for what the boarding shield, vexilla and nuncio-vox do on the units dataslates under abilities since that seems to be what FW/GW will be doing going forward for pretty much all wargear/special rules that can modify how the unit operates.

[Kais Klip]

Apologist, I know that those profiles are first drafts but I'm strongly against using the Primaris Marines stats (2W) and Boltgun (30", Ap-1) for our standard marines.

Otherwise, add the rules for what the boarding shield, vexilla and nuncio-vox do on the units dataslates under abilities since that seems to be what FW/GW will be doing going forward for pretty much all wargear/special rules that can modify how the unit operates.

Likewise, but I think Apologist was just messing around with photoshop. The switch to 8th followed pretty basic conversion ratios for units and weapons, not to mantion a large portion of units are covered by the Index Astartes books.

 

What we should look at is the special rules, like Slipstreams brings up; boarding shield, vexillology and nuncio box, all need new, relevant abilities. The boarding shield is certainly prone to considerable discussion by itself.

 

Apologist, I really do think your ROW idea is graceful; a basic change to a Force Org composition than unlocks certain Stratagems. I will go over the legion special rules and attempt to minimise them, but as they are I really think they are at a bare minimum; "I'm playing Iron Hands, and Iron Hands are tough, let's remember they're tough." At the same time, I do think FW wished to treat each legion like a codex of its own, hence it was very succesfull; it heterogised a completely homogenous product line with basic, basic moulds, it spun one basic thing into twenty and everyone loved it.

 

What I'm definitely on board with doing, is reducing Legion Stratagems to open up more impact for Rite of Wars. Or even perhaps moving some less iconic passive rules to the Stratagem set. I strongly believe "legion theme" should be present in atleast one passive rule to keep in mind; it's more buttons to press, and button pressing is fun. Hence my dislike zero something like the Iron Hands rule; it's so passive, it's more of a special rule than an active ability. So I'd defo sacrifice secondary passive abilities in favour of Stratagems, which are way more buttony, in my opinion.

 

We really could use more feedback though; I would be absolutely in favour of making Stratagems consecutive and relegating legion rules to them, if people merely said they prefer that.

 

And if we have any witch minds out there; WE NEED PSYCHIC POWERS :)

[Slips]

The boarding shield can simply be:

• Models/Units that charge a Model/Unit equipped with a Boarding Shield does not count as having charged on the turn that it does so regardless of abilities the model/unit may have. (Ie: it doesnt get to participate in the whole "Chargers strike first before alternating activations" part of the fight phase).
• Models/Units equipped with a Boarding Shield gain a 5+ Invulnerable Save against attacks made in the fight phase and a 6+ Invulnerable Save against attacks made in the shooting phase.

Another note to be made is that since ATSKNF in 40k is now Re-roll failed morale, which is essentially what a Vexilla does now in 30k, how should the Legiones Astartes base rule (Regroup tests at full morale regardless of casualties) be changed to reflect the 8th ed. Changes?

 

Similarly, the Vexilla will also need to change. Probably just a simple +1 to morale tests for every 5 models in a unit? That way, a 20 man squad that loses 5 to shooting would gain a +3 to morale (15 models left) so their LD9 (if the sarge is still there) goes down to 4 but then back up to 7 meaning you wont lose too many extra models so long as your large blobs have bodies in them and makes an Apothecary, who can now bring models back into a squad, that much more of a worthwhile investment.

 

Nuncio-Vox is going to be an odd one. The easiest way I can see it working is that it lets artillery units re-roll their number of shots if they [the artillery] dont have direct LoS to their target but the Nuncio equipped squad does. Otherwise, I don't see it serving much of a purpose anymore since Deepstrikes no longer scatter.

 

Hardened Armour is iffy. It could simply be that the unit reduces the Ap of weapons being shot at them by 1 to a minimum of 0? Another idea would be: They can re-roll failed armour saves against shooting weapons that roll for their number of shots (all of which have historically been template weapons for the most part).

[Grifftofer]

The ideas that have been thrown around on the Heresy 30K forum are along these lines:

• Legiones Astartes: Re-roll Morale tests (ATSKNF from 40K marines).
• Vexilla: +1 to Leadership.
• Nuncio-vox: Roll an extra dice and discard the lowest for weapons with random shots; where the Nuncio-vox has LOS and is within 18" of the target.
• Boarding shields: +1 armour save vs Damage 1 weapons (All is Dust from 40K Rubrics).
• Hardened armour: Reduce the number of shots rolled, for random shot weapons, against this unit by 1 (to a min of 1). Also reduce Advance rolls by 1 (to a min of 1).

They may not fit for you guys, but thought I'd mention it anyway.

[Slips]

+1 LD for vexillas is cool for smaller units but quasi-useless for larger squads is my main concern:

• 20man Squad, LD9 up to 10 with +1 Vex. Loses 10 models, somehow, to shooting, LD0 loses 1-6 extra models due to new morale.
• vs +1LD per 5 models, 20 man squad, loses 10, goes to LD2 since 10 models left, roll 1-2 (1/3 chance, really) to not take extra casualties from morale.

Marginal difference but makes it more worthwhile on larger blobs that dont get quasi-erased off the board.

 

Otherwise, LA being equal to ATSKNF is fine for me.

 

Nuncio-Vox 18" Limit makes it blegh imo means you don't really have "spotter" units that hand back/near artillery anymore. 2D6 pick the highest for #of shots is pretty equal to Re-Roll # of shots so either is fine.

 

Their Hardened Armour seems to minor in scope. -1 shots to weapons that roll for it is cool when its 1d6 shots but when weapons roll 2d6, 3d6, etc. its not really doing anything unless they roll snake eyes or something.

 

Boarding shield can easily be kept as it is now so I don't see why it should be changed all that much.

[Kais Klip]

Awesome stuff Grifftofer, thanks for sharing them with us.

 

We have to be careful not to turn this into a wishlisting thread. All we're doing is trying to stop-gap the disparity between two editions, and our biggest play for legitimacy is sticking as close to GWs/FW's precedent as we can.

 

I full heartedly disagree with ATSKNF being present in 30k; FW made it clear that this is a whole different age, and Loken's reactions to a Daemon in whisperheads is mark ably different to a 40k marine's.

 

I believe re-roll to morale shouldn't be a default LA ability; it should be the Vexilla's purpose.

 

Grifftofer's Nuncio-Vox idea is great however; roll two dice and pick the highest.

 

Breacher marines are the great temptation; from my point of view the shield is useless in a sense of ranged phalanx ability, and we have a great opportunity to make breachers actually viable on the board. But it seems FW's is clearly against that, and many folks like Slipstreams are fine with them as they are.

 

There's just little way to make them work as rationale would suggest; we could offer invulnerable saves, as well as AP reductions, but what about small arms fire? Surely an extra two inches of ceramite would make a difference, and be harder to breach than ceramic plate alone. I own a small contingent of breachers myself, and would love to go all phalanx, but I honestly believe it's a hornet's nest best to leave to FW.

 

I am still tempted to make a proposal; to inspire them if you will; re-rollable 3+ armour save (that is able to be modified) a la Siege Mantlets, but without an invulnerable save. Same protection as dreadnought armour against small arms fire, but still leaves a reason for it to be phased out in favor of terminator armour.

[Slips]

"Phalanx Formation" could be an ability specifically given to breachers if you really want to incorporate one and not have it necessarily tied to their Boarding Shields.

 

It could be as simple as Units/Models with boarding shields always count as benefiting from cover if within 1-3" of another model equipped with a Boarding Shield.

[jaxom]

 

 

*snip*

....

 

*snip*

 

While I think these are a good almost straight conversion of the current NL rules....

Sorry if this comes off a little...judgemental. Just wanted to check your reasoning for some things

 

 

I hadn't gotten to working over jaxom's suggestions for a night lords; don't worry, judgemental is exactly what I'm looking for.

 

Heh, I'm a Dark Angels player, I feel uncomfortable if someone (usually ant Interrogator-Chaplain) isn't judging me. My first go through was basically a direct translation from AoD rules to eighth and that work doesn't really fit the more recent direction the thread took.

 

 

+ On specifics +

I would have thought Nostroman Blood could be adequately represented simply by saying that Night Lords always make Battleshock tests against the lowest LD in the unit. As well as representing them paying less attention to their officers (and not being affected when they're killed), which fits nicely background-wise, it's easy to remember.

 

I really like this.

 

boarding shield, vexillology and nuncio box, all need new, relevant abilities. The boarding shield is certainly prone to considerable discussion by itself.

 

Nuncio could be ditched like teleport homers. If not, I think it should convey a benefit for units that are deployed from off the board rather than artillery. Coordinating deployment has been their theme and I'd rather they stay closer to that than become artillery spotting. Something like letting a unit deploy 1" or 2" closer to an opponent's units if also within 9" of a Nuncio-vox would be something small, but powerful.

 

I haven't seen the new rules for Orks or Chaos, but they usually have some sort of banner upgrade. Could we crib the rules from that for the vex?

 

Boarding shields... maybe +1 Save vs Shooting (or -1 To Hit vs Shooting?) and something that plays around with the normal rule that chargers attack first. Narrative for them usually revolves around shield wall tactics and disordering charges against them.

 

 

I do think FW wished to treat each legion like a codex of its own, hence it was very succesfull; it heterogised a completely homogenous product line with basic, basic moulds, it spun one basic thing into twenty and everyone loved it.

What I'm definitely on board with doing, is reducing Legion Stratagems to open up more impact for Rite of Wars. Or even perhaps moving some less iconic passive rules to the Stratagem set. I strongly believe "legion theme" should be present in atleast one passive rule to keep in mind

 

I agree with this.

 

 

And if we have any witch minds out there; WE NEED PSYCHIC POWERS 

 

 

Dark Angels, Blood Angels, and Space Wolves could use their triads. White Scars should probably have a triad and Thousand Sons should have ... something special (access to all Legion triads?). I think the other psyker using Legions could stick with the Space Marine triad.

 

EDIT: Somethings didn't save apparently.

Edited June 8, 2017 by jaxom

[Kais Klip]

@ jaxom, when you have the time could you throw us a handful of Dark Angel Stratagems? Not really confident of where to even start with them really. Try not to make them too 'wing specific, perhaps the DA could have 2 unique strategems, and a further 1 based on their warlord alignment. Similar to the Thousand Sons. 

[jaxom]

Here's a few - I'm just tossing out ideas because I wasn't sure what was meant "a further 1 based on their warlord alignment. Similar to the Thousand Sons."

 

Brackets mean I'm offering options for the exact effect because I think they both fit the theme.

 

Weapons of Old Night (X CP): The Dark Angels carry weapons forbidden to most, but only use them in times of great need. Choose a unit during the Shooting phase. It [re-rolls failed Wounds][gains -1 AP].

 

Knights of the Order (X CP):  The martial practices of the Dark Angels are informed by the millenia old traditions of Caliban. Choose a unit during the Combat phase. It [re-rolls failed Hits][gains +1 To Hit rolls].

 

Legion of Unity  (X CP): No one knows exactly what happened to the Thunder Warriors, just that they were gone and the First Legion stood in their place.The unit deals an additional Mortal Wound on a 6+ Wound roll against a model with a 3+ Save. This Stratagem can be used after rolling for Wounds.

 

Inviolate and Alone (X CP): The Dark Angels arrive, act, and then are gone. [Choose a unit during the Movement phase. They gain +2" Movement if moving towards an opponent's unit and no friendly units are within 6"]

 

The Spiral (X CP): Squires of the Order train meticulously on the transition from pistol to melee. Choose a unit with models that shot with pistols in the Shooting phase. Successful Overwatch hits against the unit in the Charge phase must be re-rolled.

 

Exterminators (X CP): When shooting an opponent's unit within 12", a unit with the Infantry keyword can add +1 to Wound rolls with any Rapid Fire, Assault, or Pistol weapons with Strength 5 or less.

 

Goliaths of War (X CP) This one should probably go with a Rite of War An opponent's unit making a Morale test within 6" of a unit with the [Vehicle][Tank][Walker] keyword has a -1 penalty to Leadership for every 5 Wounds the unit currently has.

Edited June 9, 2017 by jaxom

[Kais Klip]

Alignment as in which part of the hexagrammaton your Warlord subscribes to, but you pretty much gone and done that anyway :D

 

Will throw those up in the morning; could you help me cut the number down to size by selecting the more generic ones for a passive due, and the last third stratagem will depend on which 'wing your Warlord is from. Or something like that.

[Jensvdb]

Why not:

 

Hardened Armor: when determining the number of shots of random-shot weapons against a unit with hardened armor roll 1 dice more and discard the highest dice

 

with this method it doesnt matter if the weapon is 1d6 or 4d6.

[apologist]

I've finished converting the Troops in the style I've used above; taking some of the discussion here into account – particularly Grifftofer's  notes, as they better fit the slim, clean rules I like. I realise that this doesn't directly relate to the Rites of War of the initial discussion, so I've uploaded the pics and rules on Death of a Rubricist, so if you wish you can follow The Eightfold Path, where I've also included some notes – including why I think the Primaris stats are more suitable.

 

Once I've finished converting the rest, I'll be able to start work on the Rites of War, and hope that I can continue to help with the Legion rules here, too. :)

[jaxom]

Deathwing - Intuitive Stratagems (1 CP): Use a Stratagem you have already used this phase. You must pay its cost as well as the cost for this Stratagem. You cannot use this Stratagem on this Stratagem.

It's been noted that Guilliman was the better logistician, but lacked the intuitive strategic sense the Lion had when responding to changes on the battlefield. Considering I see the Deathwing as the the strategic specialists of the Legion I think it makes sense they don't get a unique Stratagem but could repeat the use of one from earlier in a phase.

 

Ravenwing - Hunt Them Down (X CP): An opponent's unit cannot Flee.

I took it from the previous Ravenwing Protocol Rite of War; I think its generically useful enough to be a warlord stratagem.

 

Firewing - Steadfast (X CP): A unit which passes a Morale check gains the effect of a Narthecium being used on them but I'm too lazy to look up the wording.

I think it fits the "fighting in the worst areas and are impossible to shift" vibe.

 

Stormwing - Principles of Assault (X CP): Models in a unit gain +1 Attack if no one in the unit is within 1" of an opponent's unit  that they did not Charge in the previous phase.

For breaking open a specific unit/spot in a line rather than trying to engage a group of units with Pile In moves. Makes sense to me for Stormwing/

 

Dreadwing - Exterminators (X CP): When shooting an opponent's unit within 12", a unit with the Infantry keyword can add +1 to Wound rolls with any Rapid Fire, Assault, or Pistol weapons with Strength 5 or less.

"We have come. We are death."

 

Ironwing - Under Our Treads (X CP): A unit with the Vehicle keyword inflicts D3 Mortal Wounds to a unit it Charges.

Useful even if you're just fielding a few Dedicated Transports and makes them more of possible threat if you want to get them close with the unit they're carrying.

 

 

Rites of War Recommended:

 

Honorable Engagement (X CP): A unit that was not the target of a Charge but is within 1" of an opponent's unit after the opponent's unit Piles In can immediately Pile In and attack.

 

Weapons of Old Night (X CP): The Dark Angels carry weapons forbidden to most, but only use them in times of great need. Choose a unit during the Shooting phase. It [re-rolls failed Wounds][gains -1 AP].

 

Knights of the Order (X CP):  The martial practices of the Dark Angels are informed by the millenia old traditions of Caliban. Choose a unit during the Combat phase. It [re-rolls failed Hits][gains +1 To Hit rolls].

 

Legion of Unity  (X CP): No one knows exactly what happened to the Thunder Warriors, just that they were gone and the First Legion stood in their place.The unit deals an additional Mortal Wound on a 6+ Wound roll against a model with a 3+ Save. This Stratagem can be used after rolling for Wounds.

 

The Spiral (X CP): Squires of the Order train meticulously on the transition from pistol to melee. Choose a unit with models that shot with pistols in the Shooting phase. Successful Overwatch hits against the unit in the Charge phase must be re-rolled.

 

Goliaths of War (X CP) An opponent's unit making a Morale test within 6" of a unit with the [Vehicle][Tank][Walker] keyword has a -1 penalty to Leadership for every 5 Wounds the unit currently has.

including why I think the Primaris stats are more suitable.

 

I agree with what you wrote within the context of AoD forces fighting AoD forces.

[Slips]

thinking more on the subject of multiwound astartes, with how 8th has changed wound allocation, I'm actually fine with it now. There isn't any real risk of spreading damage around to the point that a 20 Man Squad takes 20 wounds and thus reduces each model to 1W each since you HAVE to allocate every remaining wound to an already-wounded model until it dies at which point you pick a new unwounded model.

 

The only thing is that if basic Astartes are 2W, does that make basic Terminators 3W and special terminators that were 2W in 6/th 4W?

Edited June 10, 2017 by slipstreams