Silvereye said:
Sorry, but this might be a bit of a long rambling post... My thoughts on the Space Marines so far.
No Problem. Your thoughts are really helpful for me and give me a lot of new ideas. But I would like to comment on some things and I would be interested for your reasoning at some points. I split my answer because it's so much material that I need time to work through.
Silvereye said:
SPACE MARINES
Move - reduce all infantry by -1"?
Can you tell me the reason why I should reduce the movement value?
Silvereye said:
First Company Assets
All Terminators - Drop Parry, bring it back into profile through weapons.
I'm still not sure about Terminators being Hit 7 - it does mean that they are immune to a Guardsman's Lasgun, and possibly an awful lot of other weapons. Change tp Hit: 6+; Save:2+/5+; Kill: 12+; Hits/3 means they are still increadbly difficult to kill. But it's achievable by lots of basic weapons.
I have given them the Parry trait, because all the other elite troops (i.e. vanguard, sternguard, etc.) have this trait also. But you could be right with your suggestion. A fighter inside a Terminator armor is not to be able to parry an attack without a suitable weapon for it.
Ok it's true that a hit of 7+ is really hard. But I see no problem in that case. A terminator will probably cost around 200 points or more. For these points other army get enough troops or better weapons that give them a good chance to make a hit or kill at the Terminator. And the terminator armor is the best full-body armor suit that the Empire has to offer. And this point should be reflected in the values.
Silvereye said:
Command Assets
Add Apothecary
Add Techmarine
Librarian split into Codicer - Psyker/1, Veteran and Epistolary - Psyker/2, Elite.
Dreadnaught - reduce CC to 2xD10 (boost with Dreadnaught CC weapons)
I know that the Apothecary and the Techmarine are missing in my list. That's my mistake. I will create some profiles for them. But what kind of trait we can give them to distinguish them from other Marines. They have a special combat function, but I have no real idea how this can represent in the game.
I had the same idea for the Librarian like you. I think that is a good way to get a psyker for lower cost of points.
I like your Dreadnaught sugguestion.
Silvereye said:
Armoury Assets
Vindicator is a siege tank, Increase save to 2+?
A give them the 3+-save because in the original 40k-Rules the vindicator and the predator have the same armor values. I just think about it if I take the idea from the Evo rules with different values for the different sides of a tank. But I'm not sure right now if that is playable
Silvereye said:
Fleet Assets
Add Storm Raven
Ok, I created this profile yet. When I wrote the other profiles the Storm Raven did not exist. I will make my thoughts on this point and then I post my ideas.
Silvereye said:
Close Combat Weapons
Add Dreadnaught Close Combat Weapon - CC: 3D10+3; Traits: Piercing/4
Nice idea, but I'm not sure if it make sense to set the piercing so high. The weapon has a high attack roll for CC and the chance is great that you reach very often the kill value of an enemy unit. In these cases the piercing is useless. A Piercing of 3 makes it for the adopted unit difficult enough to make a successful armor save.
Silvereye said:
Not sure about the Slow on the Chain Fist, Power Fist, or Thunderhammer. Maybe have a Ready action that allows the weilder to do something brutal and fun with them though.
I've taken the slow trait, because I wanted to represent the lower initiative from the original 40k rules. But the Ready trait could solve this problem even better. I think it's fair that a model with one of these weapons, can also use them against the enemy if it has time to prepare for the attack and gets the opportunity to act or react... I took a moment to think about it and I like the idea and it makes sense if you imagine it in a real fight.
Silvereye said:
Chain Fist - Increase piercing, Ready - Multi-hit (Designed to quicly cut a terminator sized hole in things)
Multihit is nice. That is a suitable trait for the weapon. But what shall we do with the damage value? Should we set a fixed value like the Dreadnaught CCW or do we leave it at the lucky roll of the additional D6? The increase of the piercing depends on the damage value...
Silvereye said:
Powerfist - Increase piercing
Same question like above. Fix value or variable value?
Silvereye said:
Single Lightning Claw - Roll into generic Power Weapon
Pair of Lightning Claws, +1 Dice in CC, Parry
Which damage value should we set for this weapon? The extra die for the 2nd Claw sounds good to me and the parry trait fits very well...
Silvereye said:
Thunder Hammer - Increase piercing, Ready - Killshot
Ready and Killshot fit well, but with the Killshot trait we need no more piercing (score hit = score kill => no armor save). Which damage value should we set for this weapon?
Silvereye said:
Storm Shield - +1 to saves from attacks in front 180º (counts as in light cover)?, Parry
I've talked about this equipment with Galatea. He had a similar equipment for the skinnies, which works in the same way as you describe it. This I wanted to take over for the storm shield. The Parry Trait make also sense and fits very well.
Silvereye said:
Pistols
Hand Flamer - reduce range to 5"
Why such a short range?
Silvereye said:
Light/Assault Weapons
Bolt guns/pistols, still not convinced they should be Piercing/2, it is that shift to AP 5 in recent editions of the rules...
Please remember that we create a mod and don't make a 1:1 transfer. This does not work, for that the differences are too great between the both rulesets. I take the original rules as a source of inspiration but the fluff serves also as a source.
Another thing is that the armor save modifier of -1 from the second Edition is based on a different ruleset. Especially the cover rules are different than in the SST. In the SST-rules cover give a bonus to the armor save and no modifier to the roll to hit.
Hence the piercing represents not only the armor penetration of a weapon but also the ability of a cover penetration. And if you want to base the piercing on the AP 5 from the current edition, then please remember what this value means. The weapon ignore all armor saves of 5+ and 6+. If you want transfer this 1:1 to the SST rules, then you must give the weapon a piercing of 2. (save 5 + piercing 2 = 7 => not possible on D6 - the same counts for the 6+ save)
Silvereye said:
Boltgun - reduce range to 25"?, remove [Auto], leave it for Storm Bolters?
Why should I redcue the range? I see no reason for that... Ok in the original rules the boltgun has a maximum range of 24" but I have discussed this issue with another game designer (he create a new 40k ruleset) and he has come for his system to the same view as me. The range is simply too short for this weapon. Hence we have taken both 30 inches as range for the boltgun.
The [Auto]-trait is a special trait that is supposed to represent the different combat tactics of the Space Marines on the battlefield. When the Marines split their squads and everyone is fighting alone, they use aimed shots. This is represented by using of the 3"-LZ around the target unit.
If they work together as a squad or fire team, the 3"-zone make no sense, because too many potential hits would find no more targets. Hence a unit of Space Marines would create the normal Auto-zone of 6 " for their boltguns.
Silvereye said:
Sniper Rifle - Replace Heavy and Slow with Ready, Increase Piercing?
Ok I think the "slow" trait not fit for this weapon. The weapon should be able to react. The "Heavy" trait should avoid that a model shoot with this weapon if it use their special ability "Shoot on the run". So I think we keep this trait. I'm not sure about the "Ready" Trait. I think we should try both in a test game.
On increasing the penetration I have to think because the weapon already has a very high damage roll. In addition, the weapon receives a bonus depending on the size of the target model. Hence the probability is very high that the gun often throws a kill.
Silvereye said:
Flamer - increase range to 10"
Ok no problem with that. I set the range on the base of the flame template from the original 40k-Rules.
Silvereye said:
Meltagun - Is there any reason to have Killshot and Multihit?
locarno24 said:
Yes. A hit now does 4 damage (i.e. enough to total a battle tank).
That is correct. All melta weapons are specialized for anti-tank combat. But you'll just have to come close to the tank to blow him away.
Silvereye said:
Shotgun Bullet - Increase Range to 20", reduce piercing to 2, remove Slow
Shotgun Shot - Increase Range to 15", remove Piercing and Slow and replace spread with a LZ
Do you really think it makes sense to increase the range? A shotgun is still a weapon for close combat or for very short range. The Slow trait also makes not illogical impression on me. Can you please explain to me why you think these changes make sense?
Silvereye said:
Storm Bolter - reduce range to 25"?
See my comment for the Boltgun.
Silvereye said:
Alternative Weapons
Just stick with the standard weapon entries.
Why would I do that? Is it too crazy, to differentiate the weapons more? Why should a terminator use the same assault cannon, like a Dreadnought? Why should not there be multiple power levels for the lascannon? I would like to take opportunity that offer this mod to revised some mistakes and nonsense of GW.
Silvereye said:
Move the Hunter-killer missile into Support Weapons and keep the unlimited range. Add AA?
The AA-trait makes perfect sense for this missile, and would also represent a good supplement to the onboard system.
AA Missile
Range: 60"
Damage: D10+4
Traits: Piercing/2 - LZ (2") - AA only - Agile - Direct Fire
Hunter Killer Missile
Range: unlimited (?)
Damage: D10+5
Traits: Killshot - LZ (1") - one-shot
I think about it. What do you think about the idea that we put this two weapons together in one weapon?
Hunter Killer Missile - Example
Range: unlimited
Damage: D10+5
Traits: Killshot - LZ (2") - one-shot - AA - Agile - Direct Fire -
Free
Agile - Taking from the pk-Mod
The weapon/unit ignores the dodge saves of air units. Air unit possessing this trait ignore the dodge saves of other air units when attacking them in close combat. Air units with the agile trait may block the flight path of other air units which results in intended collisions.
If an acting air unit moves into point blank range of an opposing air unit which possesses the agile trait you may work out close combat damage instantly, if the player of the agile model wishes. After attacks and damage are resolved the acting air unit must continue it's movement as normal (which may in case of Chirper swarms result in further collisions), if it is not destroyed during the collision.
If the air unit is destroyed during a collision it will crash down immediately using the normal air rules. The crash distance depends on the speed of the acting air unit, not on the distance it moved before it crashed into the blocking model.
If the blocking air unit is destroyed it will crash down referring to the flight speed it moved this turn or – in case it has not yet moved this turn – to the flight speed it moved the last run. If you don't remember at which speed the unit flew last turn you may also refer to it's lowest possible flight speed.
Direct Fire - Taking from the pk-Mod
Only LZ (X“) weapons with this trait may use direct fire mode (=create a normal firezone and not a template). Note that LZ (Stream) weapons will never gain this trait.
Free - Taking from the pk-Mod
This weapon may always be fired in addition to any other weapon the model is able to use.
Silvereye said:
Heavy Weapons
Do we need to add rules that allows them to only fire once per round, or just that the space marines need to be stationary to fire them, or both?
As I have already written above, the "Heavy" trait should avoid that a model shoot with this weapon if it use their special ability "Shoot on the run". The Question now which trait we keep in the profiles. I think the Heavy Trait is ok. But about the "Ready" and the "Slow" Trait, we should discuss.
1. Should a heavy weapon to be able to react or not? (slow)
2. When a heavy weapon is able to react, should this reaction require a "Ready" Action or not? (Ready)
Silvereye said:
Remove the Twin-Linked entries. Twin-linked should just get a standard rules description. Maybe +50% dice, and additional +1?
About these weapons, I thought long and hard. I have discussed this problem with Galatea, and we have solved the problem on the same principle as the twin fifty from SST. This weapon also has the double damage profile of a single caliber .50 BMG.
I see no problem on this weapons with this stats. The weapons lost their rerolls for the roll to hit from the original 40k-rules but get the double damage chance(!!). All weapons of all other armies that work this way, I would treat in the same way. That is not specific for the Space Marines.
Silvereye said:
Add
Hurricane Bolters - Range 25"; Damage (6x Boltguns is probably very excessive) 6xD6+2; Traits Auto; Piercing/2; Multihit
Your proposal for the Hurricane Bolter System sounds good. You're right, that a damage profile would be pretty hard with 12 dices per system. However, we are talking about an assault vehicle which is intended to strike breaches. So the Hurricane Bolter System should be able to cause corresponding damage. I have to think about it...
Silvereye said:
Assault cannon - Piercing/2
Dreadnought Assault Cannon
Range: 40"
Damage: 5x D6+3
Traits: Piercing/2 - Auto
Terminator Assault Cannon
Range: 30"
Damage: 4x D6+2
Traits: Piercing/1 - Auto
I made this profile as a proposal for the assault cannon to make the weapon more special. From my perspective, it makes no sense that Terminators and Dreadnoughts use the same weapon.
My reasoning was assumed that the terminator weapon is something that is comparable to today's minigun or mircogun.
The basic idea for the Dreadnought weapon was that is comparable to a weapon like the GAU-8 Avenger. A great walker should be able to carry a larger weapon than a servo-supported armour.
My profiles are based on the Sixgun from SST and on the GAU from Modern Combat. The only additional traits that would make sense for me yet, would be "Prone" and "Multihit". Prone only for the Terminator Weapon and Multihit for both weapons.
Silvereye said:
Autocannon - increase piercing to 3
Destructor Autocannon
Range: 50"
Damage: 2x D10
Traits: Piercing/2
Twin-Linked Autocannon
Range: 50"
Damage: 4x D6+2
Traits: Piercing/1 - Auto
Let me explain why I would like to split this weapon. Based on the strength of autocannon from 40k I've written the first profile. This profile has been criticized as being too strong, because the Predator not only has access to this weapon. But a reduction of the weapon profile would made a Predator with this weapon nearly useless.
So I've considered how to divide the weapon useful. The main gun of a tank will certainly have a larger caliber than 30 or 40mm, so it was the only logical way, in my view, to use the first profile for the main gun. The twin-linked Autocannon is the only weapon of this type that is used in addition of the Space Marines. The Dreadnought can use it for example.
Here is the problem that this weapon is in direct competition with the assault cannon. Because the profile looks a little worse in comparison to the assault cannon, I had the following idea to make the weapon still attractive. We should give this weapon the "AA" Trait, because anti-aircraft guns are in short supply at the Space Marines anyway. And the Dreadnought can use two weapons of this type, one in each arm. With the AA-Trait for the weapon he become a good platform for anti aircraft fire. (Like the riflemen from Battletech
)
Silvereye said:
Heavy Bolter - Replace Ready, Heavy and Slow with Prone
Heavy Bolter - REWORK
Range: 40"
Damage: 3x D6+3
Traits: Auto - Piercing/2 - Multihit - Heavy - Prone
Have you not seen the revised profile?
Silvereye said:
Cyclone - Count as Twin-linked missile launcher?
Yes, in the original 40k-rules the cyclone count as a "heavy 2"-Weapon.
Silvereye said:
Flamestorm Cannon - Increase range to 15"
Ok no problem with that. I set the range on the base of the flame template from the original 40k-Rules. (See flamer)
Silvereye said:
Heavy Flamer - Increase range to 10"
Ok no problem with that. I set the range on the base of the flame template from the original 40k-Rules. (See flamer)
Silvereye said:
Multi-melta - Is there any reason to have Killshot and Multihit?
See my comment for the melta.
Silvereye said:
Support Weapons
Demolisher Cannon - Reduce range to 25"
Why do you think that we have to reduce the range for the weapon? I know that the weapon is a siege weapon for a siege tank but if the range is to short the weapon is not really effective.
Silvereye said:
Drop Ready and Heavy from the Whirlwind
You're right, the "Ready" and "Heavy"-Trait are not necessary for the weapon. The Slow trait is enough.
Silvereye said:
Vengence Missile - Add AA?
I've thought about it, but some sources in the background say that the whirlwind is not effective as an anti-aircraft tank. There are a special version of the Whirlwind, the Hyperios and for Epic there are the Hunter anti-aircraft tank with a special missiles mount.
But if we just give the "AA" trait without any other traits, then he can fight against airborne targets, but is less effective than a special tank which shoots with SAMs. And that I think is ok.
Silvereye said:
Missile Types
Krak Missile - Add Multihit
I think that is a good idea. This type of missile should be able to blow things in thousand pieces.
Silvereye said:
Drop Melta - Save the really killy missile effect for Hunter killer missiles
I think you are right. I had taken this idea from the 2nd Edition.
Silvereye said:
Drop Plasma - Why use Frag when Plasma is available? Leave it for the Xenos
I think you are right. I had taken this idea from the 2nd Edition.
Silvereye said:
Grenade Types
Add Ready action to all grenades - it means they are then much less likely to be used instead of a pistol shot etc.
You are right. Ready is really necessary for the grenades. At the moment they are really nobrainers.
Silvereye said:
Meltabomb - Is there any reason to have Killshot and Multihit?, Remove one shot
See my comment for the melta. I have set this trait, because I think the weapon is very powerful and even more if they have unlimited supply. But what is the reason that you think we have to remove the trait?
Silvereye said:
Drop Plasma - Why use Frag when Plasma is available? Leave it for the Xenos
I think you are right. I had taken this idea from the 2nd Edition.
Silvereye said:
Forces:
Librarians used to also be communications officers. Does the Codex Astartes allow them to also command forces in the field?
You're right with your assumption. They are indeed officers. Their command authority ranks below the Chaplain and the Captain.
But how can we integrate them meaningfully into the command structure? If they have command authority, they should actually be moved into the HQ section.
We can renounce to give them the "Force Leader" Trait and let them in the Command Section and give them instead to provide additional Fleet Assets for the Army, like the Techmarine do it with the Armor Assets.
Silvereye said:
Command Assets
Add Apothecary (none / 0-3 / any number)
HQ
1. Space Marine Chapter Master (none / none / 0-1)
- Space Marine Honour Guard
- Space Marine Chapter Champion
- Space Marine Chapter Standard Bearer
2. Space Marine Captian (none / 0-1 / 1+)
- Master of the Arsenal
- Master of the Recruits
- Master of the Fleet
- Master of the Watch
2.1 Space Marine Command Squad
- Space Marine Apothecary
- Space Marine Company Champion
- Space Marine Company Standard Bearer
3. Space Marine Chaplain (none / 0-1 / 1+)
4. Space Marine Veteran (1 / 1-5 / any Number)
I have him as part of the command squad, because there is only one Apothecary per company. So I'm not sure if we should change that.
Silvereye said:
Basic Assests
Space Marine Assault Squad (none / 0-1 / any Number) - The Bike and Speeder assets strike me as things that would be in the low priority force - Pickets/Scouts/Patrols etc. Change to (0-1 / 0-3 / any Number), I believe they are also drawn from the Battle and Tactical Companies?
Have you not seen the Scout Bike Squadron and the Land Speeder Storm? They are unlimited on all Priority levels. In my view the mission of the space marine scouts are the partols and the reconnaissance. The normal Bike Squadrons are for hit and run missions or for fast assaults. And based on the Codex Astrates only the Assault Marines of the battle companies and all members of the 8. Reserve Company drive the bikes and attack bikes .
Silvereye said:
First Company Asset
Space Marine Terminator Squad (none / 0-1 / any Number)
- Tactical Squad (add Land Raider as Transport option?)
This transport option, they should definitely get and I had listed that in the appropriate unit description also. But I would like to make this option depend on the availability of appropriate Armor Assets. They still have their teleport option to arrive the battlefield.
Silvereye said:
Armoury Assets
Make more slots available with Techmarines - they wouldn't leave the fun toys behind.
You could be right that there are too few slots. But I'm not sure what number is reasonable for one Techmarine.
Silvereye said:
Tarantuala's for defensive missions only (0-1 / 0-3 / any Number)?
Your reasoning is correct. But how we can implement this meaningful, that they are used only for defense missions?
Silvereye said:
Drop the Rapier, it's more suited to Imperial Guard equipment.
No problem with that. I had taken this idea from the 2nd Edition because I like the weapon.
Silvereye said:
Fleet Assets
Make Drop Pods more available for being an attacker.
See my comment for the Librarian. I would like to add that we can make them unlimitedly available and control their selection with the available Fleet Assets. What do you thinking about that idea?
So I update my comments and now they are complete.
I am grateful for further comments and criticisms.
@Tau & Orcs Stats...
Guys, I'm looking forward to these stats ... I can hardly wait ...
Greetz
Arkon
