PDA

View Full Version : Help with campaign



Soss
21-10-2014, 08:18
I am writing up a campaign and have something I need some help with. The basics of the campaign is on Campaign Warlords, these are warlords that each player has in the campaign that are key to winning and losing. I have it set up that each player will start with 5 of these and they will fill different roles depending on what you choose for them. I have a veteran system in place and an artifact system. The latest thing I am thinking of is ways to customize a non-unique warlord to add some flavor, so I came up with a point system to add USRs and skill upgrades and need help to see if these seem balanced.

Every Warlord starts with Eternal Warrior, this is because you get Campaign Points for killing them and I didn't want them to be one shotted and die. Some of the Warlords can be Vehicles.

I am thinking of 2 things to add to a non-unique warlord that will not use points, I am still unsure if they should be free.

You can choose to permanently have a warlord trait from your codex or supplement.
You can have a unit become troops, if so they are only troops. The unit must be the same unit type as your warlord. Example is having a Space Marine Commander with a Jump pack make Assault Marines as troops.


So these are the skill upgrades and the point value.

You may choose one of the following as a Characteristic Upgrade.

10 Points: +1 Weapon Skill

10 Points: +1 Ballistic Skill
15 Points: +1 Strength
20 Points: +1 Toughness
25 Points: +1 Wound
5 Points: +1 Initiative
20 Points: +1 Attack
5 Points: +1 Leadership
25 Points: +1 Armour Value to one side (max 14)
25 Points: +1 HP (max 5)

Soss
21-10-2014, 08:19
You may choose up to 3 USRs that total no more than 30 Points to add to your Custom Campaign Warlord.


5 Points: Acute Senses
5 Points: Adamantium Will
25 Points: Assault Vehicle
15 Points: Armourbane
5 Points: Bolster Defenses (as in the Space Marine Codex)
5 Points: Counter-attack
5 Points: Crusader
15 Points: Daemon
10 Points: Fast
5 Points: Fear
15 Points: Fearless
25 Points: Feel no Pain
10 Points: Fleet
20 Points: Fleshbane
5 Points: Force
5 Points: Furious Charge
5 Points: Hammer of Wrath
5 Points: Hatred (X) Must be a Faction
15 Points: Hatred (all)
5 Points: Hit & Run
15 Points: Infiltrate
15 Points: Interceptor
15 Points: It Will Not Die
15 Points: Jink
5 Points: Missile Lock
5 Points: Monster Hunter
10 Points: Move Through Cover
5 Points: Night Vision
20 Points: Orbital Bombardment (as in the Space Marine Codex)
10 Points: Outflank
10 Points: Poisoned 4+
20 Points: Power of the Machine Spirit
5 Points: Precision Shots
5 Points: Precision Strikes
10 Points: Preferred Enemy (X) Must be a Faction
20 Points: Preferred Enemy (all)
25 Points: Psyker (Level 1) Disciplines known are same as in your codex
5 Points: Rage
10 Points: Rampage
5 Points: Relentless
15 Points: Rending
10 Points: Shatter Defences (as in the Chaos Space Marine codex)
15 Points: Shred
20 Points: Shrouded
15 Points: Scout
15 Points: Skilled Rider
10 Points: Skyfire (can choose not to use this before shooting)
15 Points: Smash
5 Points: Split Fire
10 Points: Stealth
5 Points: Stubborn
20 Points: Supersonic
15 Points: Tank Hunters

Wraithguard
21-10-2014, 09:10
Sounds like a fun campaign, must be fairly large scale to have 5 warlords each, but certainly the makings of a good system.

I'm only looking at the rules here in terms of tabletop balance, and assuming other warlords are just any basic choice, HQ or otherwise plus eternal warrior, I'm not sure how fair it will be to balance a custom one. The permanent warlord trait from the codex (i believe most if not all codices have independant traits, though i think my Necrons do not and have to use the rulebook ones), that is a nice touch, however the next point is open to a lot of interpretation/gaminess. Recent codices show GW trying to phase out books that take special choices as troops (Paladins used to and Wracks used to be viable as troops) and instead replacing them with optional detachments. It could be a flavoursome army but in the case where you have a vehicle as a warlord, then 6 heavy battle tanks might be a little OTT. Of course if you have the time and access to every codex, then feel free to write special rules for every army, or even specific warlord detachments like new codices have. The USR's look well balanced so that is a nice touch as well, however the points might need to vary based on the original stat value of the warlord, as it might seem unreasonable to pay 20 points to go from 1 Attack to 2 Attacks but really good to go from 5 to 6 (Archons come to mind, paying 5 points to get Initiative 8 seems pretty awesome to me :p). Perhaps a small table (I know this might start to get RPG complicated, but its just for the warlords) that gives a points value for the stat increase between 1 and 3, then between 4 and 6 etc...

Hope this helps, happy to hear about any other elements of your system. Good luck.

Soss
21-10-2014, 09:30
Thanks for the feed back. Having a tank commander and leman russes as troops seems a little scary, I was also thinking of Daemons if they had a MC as warlords and then MC as troops. I like the idea of it to try and customize your army but I need a way to keep it from being abused. I play Dark Angels and in the campaign your warlords can die and can no longer be used. I wanted a way to say have another Belial type character to make Deathwing troops, as one example.

yabbadabba
21-10-2014, 09:54
For the troops question, I love the idea but I would limit it to one unit of that type. You could then open this up further in the campaign for that unit to gain an elite status of some sort. This would really help build the narrative of the commander and his most trusted unit that always gets the job done.

I like the USRs and the use of Eternal Warrior, but I would leave the stats upgrades to an experience table. This way you can introduce an element of randomness, not worry about relative scores, and have it accurately reflect a growing battle experience.

The other thing to suggets might be reintroducing the Strategies cards from way back, and use these to bring in ideas form other supplements, and to support small, one off tactical changes. Warlords can be awarded Strategy cards for certain victory conditions, they can only be awarded one at a time, and can only use one in any one battle, but can hold as many as they want. This could then remove some of the USRs or allow you to introduce new influence son the players to vary their tactical choices on each battle.

I hope that makes sense and helps in some way.

mr. peasant
21-10-2014, 12:21
I am writing up a campaign and have something I need some help with. The basics of the campaign is on Campaign Warlords, these are warlords that each player has in the campaign that are key to winning and losing. I have it set up that each player will start with 5 of these and they will fill different roles depending on what you choose for them. I have a veteran system in place and an artifact system. The latest thing I am thinking of is ways to customize a non-unique warlord to add some flavor, so I came up with a point system to add USRs and skill upgrades and need help to see if these seem balanced.

Every Warlord starts with Eternal Warrior, this is because you get Campaign Points for killing them and I didn't want them to be one shotted and die. Some of the Warlords can be Vehicles.

One thing to consider is that this system might unfairly favour backseat commanders over frontline ones as the latter are likelier to die than the former. Moreover, it might force people to play more defensively... which gets in the way of fun. What you definitely don't want to happen is to have most or all your campaign characters die halfway through the campaign.

A possible solution is to do away with perma-death (+/- Eternal Warrior, to boot) is to do an injury system; a la what Miniwargaming (http://www.miniwargaming.com) does on its campaigns - namely that should a character fall in battle, you roll to see if s/he is uninjured, slightly injured, gravely injured or dead, with appropriate debuffs based on severity. In addition, sitting out or surviving the next game automatically reduces the injury severity.

=Angel=
21-10-2014, 14:05
Another thing to consider is that not every commander is a beatstick. In 40k they ride around with powerfists on bikes some of the time but there's no real benefit to pouring statboosts on and making them even killier, especially since guard commanders are never in the running for that kind of thing.

Instead I'd make them free, not give them EW and give them campaign related benefits-

I have it set up that each player will start with 5 of these and they will fill different roles depending on what you choose for them.
So have one commander in charge of logistics- he allows more vehicles and supplies get to the front. One guy is in charge of the apothecarion- he grants a reroll for whatever casualty system you have in place.

If you give them decent benefits then they become valuable enough to protect, meaning a game can be more about eliminating an important commander than the nominal objectives.
They're free because they are essentially a burden for the player's army to carry, meaning any actual combat they get into becomes more heroic.

really depends what you want from your campaign.
An injury system, as suggested above could work fine too.

Soss
21-10-2014, 16:31
Thanks for all the responses. Let me go over a little bit more of how the campaign rules are now.

The whole campaign is based on getting CVP (campaign victory points), these are achieved by winning games, killing warlords, finding artifacts, completing a secret objective and by bonuses depending on what Discipline of War you choose. A Discipline of War is a type of warfare a player can choose at the beginning of the campaign, one is a defending type that gives you a bonus for winning games you defend and one other example is a artifact finding one that gives a bonus to finding artifacts. These also have in games abilities that coordinate with what discipline you choose.

Each player starts with their own solar system that consists of 3 home planets to defend and one death world where artifacts can be found. The home planets are a Capital that gives bonuses to HQ's, a Forgeworld or Spawnworld that gives bonuses to Vehicles or MCs, and a Training/resource world that gives bonuses to one type of force organization slot.

The reason why there are five warlords per player is because they each fill a different role. There are 3 defending warlords, one for each home planet, these cannot move from the planets. One warlord that can search for artifacts and attack or defend and one that is an attacking warlord that only can attack other players worlds. These can die in the campaign and have to roll on a wounded chart when they do. There is a chance that they are dead for ever and then a new warlord will be needed to take it's place.

I have a veteran system for units to gains some USR's depending on what things they complet in a game. These are random charts in which you roll a D6 to see what you get. Here is an example of one chart.

Veteran Chart: Melee. Completely wipe out a unit in the assault phase.
1. Preferred Enemy
2. Furious Charge and Hatred
3. Fleet and Rage
4. Fearless and Fear
5. +1 WS and Assault Grenades
6. Choose any result from 1-5

I also have an Artifact system to search for rare artifacts on Deathworlds. These can be used by your warlords and have special rules for them. In order to find them you have to roll on a chart to see if you do find one and sometimes this can end up in playing a 500 point game or a Kill Team Game. Here is an example of one type of artifact.

1) Artifact Weapon: Melee Weapon
Roll on the following chart, pick what type of melee weapon from your codex you would like to become the Artifact and then apply the result to that weapon. The weapon also has the following rules.
Master Crafted
Has AP4 or gets -1 to AP value
1. Quickening: +2 Initiative (or lose Unwieldy) and +1 Attack
2. Murderous: Rending and Tank Hunters
3. Crushing: +2 Strength, Smash and Concussive
4. Berserker: Rampage, Shred and Armourbane
5. Corrosive: Poison 2+ and Haywire
6. Choose any result from 1-5

We are currently play testing this campaign, so I am still adding in some other ideas to improve it. Currently you can use a non-unique warlord and they only get to choose from 5 options when they start the campaign. I just feel like adding some more options and being able define their role better will make the campaign more interesting and will help build a little bit more fluff. So that is why I came up with the upgrades in the OP to see how that may work. I think one rule I would add for the upgrade system is that each warlord that uses it has to be unique and you can not have another warlord with the same upgrades.

So far in our campaign it makes it so you can try to avoid more powerful warlords due to them being limited to where and what they can do. Plus with the option for them to die you could almost suicide them to try and take them out if needed.

Anymore feed back would be appreciated.

Chem-Dog
22-10-2014, 03:31
If the points costs given are CVP rather than points, I don't really have a problem with it but if they're points you spend when building your army, well you're going to need to adjust the points somewhat as it should be more costly for a Daemon Prince than it is an IG Officer to gain a point in any stat.

Have you considered using skill trees, where the upgrades are set (or, at least, limited) according to the type of character the Warlord is?

You might have trees called things like "Strategist", "Conqueror" "Assassin" or "Hero" (basically any archetype that fits a General) with each "perk" either an upgrade of an existing ability or a whole new bonus each unlockable by spending CVP (perhaps with an incremental cost increase) and maybe dependant on unlocking the previous ability. Give each tree a couple of branches and you can better manage the flow of improvements without being open to 1001 heinous combinations that players almost seem to feel obliged to find and exploit. Use trees as "pick one option" or allow warlords to pick from any provided they have the CVP to unlock the next their.

Another thing to consider is that one bad defeat can put a player at a distinct disadvantage, facing a player with an unbeaten lvl 10 warlord who alters his own army's performance and possibly has effects that hinder his opponent's army with a newly promoted warlord to replace the one that got killed in the last game can make a game virtually unwinnable, awarding the superior Warlord another win with the inferior one simply logging another humiliating defeat.

One thing I like the Idea of is being able to upgrade a non Command model to a special commander status, something in the HQ section that isn't able to normally be the Warlord (especially if combined with a few choice stats increases... Using the IG as an example....Perhaps a planet's defender is the senior Mechanicus Envoy on a small research station (Enginseer+1) or the rebel army is lead by a powerful Psyker (Primaris with Unusual discipline), maybe the homeworld is a shrine world an a mighty confessor (Preacher+1) leads the flock into battle....

dangerboyjim
22-10-2014, 05:23
In the last campaign I did I wanted the Warlords to be kind of central to it.

So each Warlord gets two traits, one from the main rulebook, one from their codex (all players have 6th edition + codexes)
You can pay 10pts to choose a trait or leave it random
Psykers can pay 10pts per power to choose instead of random
No Special characters are allowed, no other warlords are allowed
A surviving, winning warlord gets to roll again on either a main rulebook trait list or their codex trait list
Dead warlords sit out the next game (although another character is nominated for game terms, they have no traits)

In the first round of the campaign, all four warlords died, including my mega armoured warboss that spent the entire game hiding in his stompa.

Wraithguard
22-10-2014, 16:39
Have you considered using skill trees, where the upgrades are set (or, at least, limited) according to the type of character the Warlord is?


I like this idea, and also the reference to levels of warlord based on the tree level they are on. You could remove the additional customisation options, so they are (non 0-1 named characters) basic HQ choices tooled up how you choose them to be and maybe allow up to 2 choices of the same type as them to be taken as troops (maybe even for an additional points cost if you wanted to avoid gaminess), then have a list of 10 tables each representing a level for each discipline, so one for attack, one for defence and one for attack/defence/scouting for artifacts. As you general gains enough CVP or personal experience, they spend it on a new skill, rolled for (to avoid gaminess) or picked. Then you could get models that have the same in-game effect, but the longer they stay alive the more they contribute to the army, maybe even use objective cards as ways to gain the experience needed to level up each game, i.e. for your attack general, "cause a number of unsaved wounds/hull points upon your opponent equal to or greater than your current level in order to gain 1 experience point." This could keep them protected for their benefits, but active to seek out their required experience.
Along with the injury table, i would also suggest that if a friendly unit moves over where the warlord fell, they can collect him for medical treatment after the battle (perhaps a +2 on the roll for injury or something) in the same way banners were collected by units last time i played fantasy (can't even remember when that was xD). Likewise enemy units doing the same can take him as a prisoner, and you could write/play a rescue mission where the defenders are taken unaware :)

In terms of balancing an army having lost a warlord versus an army that hasn't, i'd say a transport arrives containing a new officer at level 1, (depending on how long your campaign will run) and he arrives with a free additional basic cheapest minimalist non-upgraded troops choice for every 3 complete levels the opposing commander has above you? Might even the odds a bit....

I would say be careful with your veteran tables, if every one of your units has this option, then a combat army (in this instance) would rapidly become fairly horrific, but it is a nice touch to add some flavour to the rest of your army.

Its sounding good, keep the ideas rolling :D

Soss
23-10-2014, 00:57
I will have to look at the Skill Tree idea, could be a good idea. My friend and I talked about the changing a unit to troops and we agreed that just allowing 2 would be fine, so I will have to think on it.

Veteran rules are unique in that a unit has to complete a certain action in game to qualify to become a veteran. Then that unit can only be used in games with the Warlord they were just with in game. So you can't combine every veteran unit in one game.

Every non-kill team game has to have a Campaign Warlord in it. If you have one that dies you just create one to take its place. I wanted to focus of warlords for this campaign because the idea of your own hero leading your army is very cool and would keep people interested.

One thing I was thinking about is maybe removing USR's like rending or shred only because they would be thinks a weapon would help due and not always a model adding abilities to that. If I did that I might add those type of USRs to maybe a weapon upgrade system, but that might overlap the Artifact system I have in place. Any thoughts on this?

Should I add variable costs to ability upgrades, like if one was for a MC or an AV increase that made your AV 13 versus making it 14?

Wraithguard
23-10-2014, 10:26
It might be a bit more work to start with the trees, but should be nice and smooth once you have them all done :)
Just 2 sounds a bit more reasonable, but that could still mean tank commander plus 2 units of 3 Leman Russ as troops :O so long as its sensible that should add some more flavour and interest to the armies though.

Thats a good idea then, i misunderstood and thought every unit every game could do it... a nice touch then :)

That's fair, but then does it really matter at all how your warlord does? People may as well just throw him into any situation if the only risk of loss is 1 CVP to the opponent... particularly if they have an extremely resilient Eternal Warrior Warlord, could be difficult to get around. I just thought making them a bit more valuable and difficult to replace would mean the players treated them like the experience rarity warlords often are? The personalised warlord is ideal yes, and a good idea i do agree.

Possible but could be risky as some units points cost are what they are because of such rules... some weapons only cost more than alternatives because of those rules, so you might invalidate some choices and weapons. You could always think up new SR's to add to your weapons like each new codex seems to have so that the remainder stay fair, even just use rules like "monofilament" or "Bladestorm" from the Eldar codex could make weapons notably better as relics :)

That could work though as discussed previously it might be tough to balance and may end up with a point cost per stat for every different army/warlord. If based on the existing level then it would be close, but a warlord who has WS 6 and BS 6 together, wouldn't need to pay as much to up just one of them as (assuming they have the wargear) they can reliably kill with the other (Space Marines i'm thinking here) whereas a Combat only MC that has BS2 and WS5 should pay a little more to make his primary stat higher, especially if it is strength and he has Hammer of Wrath etc... a fair bit to think about but if you approach it carefully, its doable. Same with the vehicles, just don't use AV 15 i'd say. Maybe use a relic shield like the "Quantum Shield" in the Necron codex, thats a cool idea :) or have it work like Telekine Dome and shield a unit with an invulnerable :D

Soss
23-10-2014, 15:42
Great info. The idea of the Warlords being throw away I don't think will be a need to worry about it. As a player you get 1 CVP for each kill and the. That warlord has to roll on a wounded chart, if the warlord dies after rolling on the wounded chart you get another 1 CVP. One example is my Big Mek died and I rolled on the chart, now he is -1 toughness, initiative and leadership which will make him easier to die the next game he is used, since he is a defending warlord of my Forge World he has to be played in any game where a player attacks my world.

Here are is the wounded chart.
Mortally Wounded Chart: Non-monstrous Creatures. Permanently -1 (min 1) Wound or Toughness.
1. -1 Wound (if at 0 wounds you are dead)
2. -1 Initiative and Leadership
3. -1 Strength and Toughness (if at 0 toughness you are dead)
4. -1 WS and BS
5. Lose Eternal Warrior and gain Slow and Purposeful. Re-roll this if you have this effect already.
6. Gain Preferred Enemy against the army that killed you.
Mortally Wounded Chart: Monstrous Creature. Permanently -2 (min 1) Wound or Toughness.
1. -2 Wounds (if at 0 you are dead)
2. -1 Initiative and Leadership
3. -2 Strength and Toughness (if at 0 toughness you are dead)
4. -1 WS and BS
5. Lose Eternal Warrior and gain Slow and Purposeful. Re-roll this if you have this effect already.
6. Gain Preferred Enemy against the army that killed you.
Mechanical Repair: Walker. Permanently -1 (min 1) Hull Point or Armour Value.
1. -1 Hull Points (if at 0 you stay wrecked)
2. -2 Initiative and -2 Strength
3. -1 Armour Value on all sides (min 10)
4. -1 WS and BS
5. Lose Extra Armour or any way to ignore/downgrade a Shaken or Stunned result.
6. Gain Preferred Enemy against the army that killed you.
Mechanical Repair: Non-walker Vehicle. Permanently -1 (min 1) Hull Point or Armour Value.
1. -1 Hull Points (if at 0 you stay wrecked)
2. Cannot move Flat Out or lose Fast if you have it
3. -1 Armour Value on all sides (min 10)
4. -1 BS
5. Lose Extra Armour or any way to ignore/downgrade a Shaken or Stunned result.
6. Gain Preferred Enemy against the army that killed you.
If your unique character is dead after rolling on the chart your opponent that killed him gains 1 CP.

I did add a rule were your warlord and any transport or unit he is with can leave the game by moving off a table edge, but it gives your opponent a VP for each unit that dies this, so that could lose you the game but save your warlord.

so far we are testing the winning conditions. As being a player needs 12 CVP to win. If you win a game and kill a warlord in the same game that is at least 2 CVP, not counting any extra ways to get CVP. So far the Eldar have got 4 CVPs in one turn.

Wraithguard
24-10-2014, 15:42
The chart looks good, and its good to see that its hard to actually lose them. The tables look pretty well balanced as well, should make for some interesting games. I can see that warlords are going to be #1 targets for everything in most games and they won't be able to hide as they are equal to a complete game win in terms of CVP. I suspect that in each game every player is doing their utmost to murder the enemy warlord? It would also be rather tough to protect him against an entire army unless he is designed to be hard to kill (I'm thinking Wraithknight warlord with farseer and 5+ warlocks nearby, cast invis. on it each turn and cast renewer whenever its injured. Pretty nasty and would draw so so much firepower that the game would be more assasination than tactical objectives in my mind, but hopefully you haven't got this kind of play).

Thats a good idea for the warlord leaving the table, only awarding a VP per unit is a nice touch too. I'd say perhaps only allow VP's for warlord kills/flees and only ever award 1 CVP for a win? Maybe 2 VP for a warlord kill if you want to make them really key figures. This might help keep the campaign more even, then again i may have misunderstood again and you have no trouble with the warlords CVP reward, just a thought :D

Have you thought of adding any other victory conditions? Maybe holding 1 of each of the players provinces? Killing outright at least 1 warlord? Finding a specific relic? (DoW style with some super powerful daemon relic etc...)

Baaltor
24-10-2014, 16:22
I'm personally not a fan of the warlord death/injury tables. I understand they have merits, but I prefer to leave who dies/when/how/why to the narrative. And if they're killed in combat, you can decide they are wounded, knocked out, have to be revived with bionics, are resurrected by their Patron God, have a former follower take up their mantle and weapons, or are replaced by a new commander; whatever. I don't see why commanders would be proportionately more limited than elites or specialist HQ's, which can die and then come back the next game.

I'm also against gaining skills/xp DURING a campaign. Because I hate fun.

=Angel=
24-10-2014, 18:08
I'm also against gaining skills/xp DURING a campaign. Because I hate fun.

I get you. My spacemarine captain, veteran of a thousand campaigns has learned a new skill after a skirmish.

I think.it's far more acceptable for the commanders to gain campaign based benefits as a result of victories, securing supplylines and beachheads granting extra reinforcements etc.
A commander just levelling up and getting a statboost ( and if chaos spacemarines have taught us anything, it's that most players will go straight for a toughness increase) or direct combat damage increase doesn't really seem to be a thing that would happen from commanding so much as meleeing.

That said I think xp has a place in 40k and my campaigns tend to lean towards the grunts levelling up and getting promotions as they survive getting thrust into the fire.

A veteran squad pulling replacement men from a line squad that has seen combat is an example of this.
Another might be allowing the survivors of a conscript squad to become a guard squad.

Another type of experience is preferred enemy or bonuses against unit types. A squad of guard that managed to finish off a marine squad and survive the battle must be getting good at aiming for weak points in powered armour.
Forcing marines to reroll saves against a squad or two of guard wouldn't be game breaking and would be a nice boost.

Similarly, marines who managed to kill three times their number in a single battle and survive could get a usr to reflect their crowd control skills.

Soss
24-10-2014, 23:56
Every unique character in the campaign uses this wounded chart, so it makes them more important because they can die and removed for the rest of the campaign.

As for gaining CVPs you get them for the following.
1- non-kill team game win
1- find an Artifact
1- kill a warlord in game
+1- if a warlord killed in game dies from the wounded chart
+3- if you completely take over a world, which consists of 3 locations.
5- if you complete a secret objective, there are 5 or 6 of these and are random for each player which only gets one of them.
+1 for different disciplines of war that a player chooses before the campaign. One example is the Treasure Hunter discipline, if this player finds an Artifact they get an extra CVP, another example is a defending discipline that gives an extra CVP when you win the game as a defender.

So far there has been one army that has received 4 CVPs in a turn.

Lord General Armstrong
25-10-2014, 07:12
I'd say the charts are fine for most MEQ HQ choices, other races with a more GEQ stat-line are beening potentially overcharged (specifically for the characteristic changes) for many of them.

Baaltor
25-10-2014, 13:01
Every unique character in the campaign uses this wounded chart, so it makes them more important because they can die and removed for the rest of the campaign.


But what about for unique units like Honour guard, or excessively rare ones, with two or three of them across your whole force?


I think.it's far more acceptable for the commanders to gain campaign based benefits as a result of victories, securing supplylines and beachheads granting extra reinforcements etc.
A commander just levelling up and getting a statboost ( and if chaos spacemarines have taught us anything, it's that most players will go straight for a toughness increase) or direct combat damage increase doesn't really seem to be a thing that would happen from commanding so much as meleeing.


I'm glad to here I'm not the only jerk here who thinks this. But I kinda feel the same way about grunts. The thing is that if they're getting these skills, why aren't they turning into elites and such instead of becoming wyrd things?

yabbadabba
25-10-2014, 14:27
I get you. My spacemarine captain, veteran of a thousand campaigns has learned a new skill after a skirmish.

I think.it's far more acceptable for the commanders to gain campaign based benefits as a result of victories, securing supplylines and beachheads granting extra reinforcements etc.
A commander just levelling up and getting a statboost ( and if chaos spacemarines have taught us anything, it's that most players will go straight for a toughness increase) or direct combat damage increase doesn't really seem to be a thing that would happen from commanding so much as meleeing. And yet the essence of a 40K commander is that they are frontline commanders, not REMFs. So even for you, there is a reason to have skill trees that do reflect increasing all stats, because they are involved in those combats, those skirmishes or big battles, and will themselves learn from that.

If you wanted to make it more tighter it would mean separate vp conditions for the Commanders with their command and melee skills, which would be more complicated, but also far more balanced and campaign realistic. Any commander is not the finished item when it comes to melee.

Soss
25-10-2014, 20:33
But what about for unique units like Honour guard, or excessively rare ones, with two or three of them across your whole force?

I don't have any limitations on those, my thoughts would be that if they die others would be promoted into those positions. So the wounded chart only applies towards unique characters.

I see that the point cost could be adjusted a little bit depending on what the model starts with, this could maybe be achieved with a tiered cost depending on what you start with. I think I may go this route, I just have to put it on paper first and then I will post it here to see what you think.

The he more Ivan thinking of the USRs the more that I might remove skills like rending, Armourbane and fleshbane. Only because I think these are more for weapon types and not the model using them. Plus some of the artifacts have those rules. Any thoughts on this?

=Angel=
25-10-2014, 21:34
And yet the essence of a 40K commander is that they are frontline commanders, not REMFs. So even for you, there is a reason to have skill trees that do reflect increasing all stats, because they are involved in those combats, those skirmishes or big battles, and will themselves learn from that.
.

Yes, 40k has commanders who 'lead' in the Conan/Predator tradition of holding down a trigger/swinging a sword while screaming.

But as much as 40k is a glorified RPG, there's very little room for leveling up commanders in the scale of the game.
A spacemarine captain is the product of decades if not centuries of war. He has two extra wounds than his line astartes and extra weapon skill and bs, also leadership 10.
He is one or two stat points from a chapter master's profile.

He is very much the end result of a career of killing, it's doubtful that he will learn anything meaningful about swordfighting from this next campaign game against guard or tau.
And if he did, how would you improve him without pushing him to or beyond chaptermaster levels?
He already has max Ld, improving his BS won't meaningfully impact the game since his ranged options are limited and 5 is great anyway.

In contrast, newly promoted sarge Lukas Skystrider is just beginning his career as a part of the machinery of command. He is two points of ld away from max and two points of bs away from 5.
He may never have fought tau before and spacemarines are a legend his grandfather told him once.
He has lots to learn and room to grow that wont have him suddenly outperforming spacemarine veteran squads in a few battles.


Sent from my R800i using Tapatalk 2

Soss
25-10-2014, 21:48
I am thinking of ideas and what about having the USR's that you can choose be based off of what ability you decided to upgrade?

So if you choose WS bonus you would only get access to USRs that are Melee oriented.

Baaltor
25-10-2014, 23:59
I don't have any limitations on those, my thoughts would be that if they die others would be promoted into those positions.

Yeah, that makes sense, but I don't see why it shouldn't apply to leaders. You could argue scarcity, but like I said oilier: even if they aren't replaced by promotions, there's a good chance that they'll be found unharmed after combat, escape capture, or recover fully. Even IF they're slain, the commanders have access to bionics, and may be revived even from death, stronger, faster, smarter, better than he was before. Or maybe there's an imposter, disciple, daemonic rebirth/time paradox, reincarnation, the necron overlord gets reconstituted.

I'd rather leave it as a substantial mechanical bonus representing recovery/MIA/augory/regeneration/bedrest/replacement and call it a day. If a player decides to retire a model, or unit, then call it death.

yabbadabba
26-10-2014, 00:32
Simple. You make it harder for a commander to progress than a trooper. But to claim any commander is the finished item is not only nonsense, it's also not reflected in the rules. Even marine officers still have to train.

=Angel=
26-10-2014, 14:16
Simple. You make it harder for a commander to progress than a trooper. But to claim any commander is the finished item is not only nonsense, it's also not reflected in the rules. Even marine officers still have to train.

They do, and maybe they might pick up a skill or trait after a few battles such as a familiarity with the vulnerabilities of tau armour/conferring tank hunters on a unit.
But the game has racial traits, especially strength and toughness. A grizzled old guard colonel is still toughness3. For me the command stats represent something of a soft cap for improvement.
A lord commissar is ws5 because that's what he's trained at for most of his life, leading charges.
The colonel may have had to choke a wych various times and he's ws4. He could possibly reach ws5 after a few battles kicking nids in the venom sacs but he's unlikely to get strength 4.

Straken and Marbo are freakish outliers, not the usual result of self improvement.

yabbadabba
26-10-2014, 14:22
The colonel may have had to choke a wych various times and he's ws4. He could possibly reach ws5 after a few battles kicking nids in the venom sacs but he's unlikely to get strength 4. again, we can argue the basics back and forth using both background and the GW history of rule sets, the long and the short of it is we both agree; commanders can improve but possibly at a much slower rate than a basic trooper, which is entirely consistent with learning models.

=Angel=
26-10-2014, 15:35
again, we can argue the basics back and forth using both background and the GW history of rule sets, the long and the short of it is we both agree; commanders can improve but possibly at a much slower rate than a basic trooper, which is entirely consistent with learning models.

Yes. I think that's fair.
I would generally draw a line at statboosts but be more open to a usr.

Baaltor
26-10-2014, 22:49
They do, and maybe they might pick up a skill or trait after a few battles such as a familiarity with the vulnerabilities of tau armour/conferring tank hunters on a unit.
But the game has racial traits, especially strength and toughness. A grizzled old guard colonel is still toughness3. For me the command stats represent something of a soft cap for improvement.
A lord commissar is ws5 because that's what he's trained at for most of his life, leading charges.
The colonel may have had to choke a wych various times and he's ws4. He could possibly reach ws5 after a few battles kicking nids in the venom sacs but he's unlikely to get strength 4.

Straken and Marbo are freakish outliers, not the usual result of self improvement.

I kinda disagree on the S/T caps conceptually. It's not really possible for a guardsmen to just suddenly develope S4, sure, but bionics totally exist, which could be used to justify S/T/I & even wounds. Marines might be a common form of gene therapy in the game, but there are vast numbers of technology and chemical treatments to enhance or change physiologies. Then every other faction has daemonic gifts, Orkoid/Tyrranic physiology, is made out of robot/imagination, or something else.

Edit: I kinda like the idea of campaign based games like Necromunda or whatever where one guy with 2X0 exp vs. another with 2X0 exp. is whole worlds of difference. A captain is a captain in 40k, and his statline doesn't show that he was ever was a company champion, prematurely promoted due to chapter decimation, a latent psyker, or an ex-chaplain; because those examples are all the same across the board, and all created equal.

=Angel=
28-10-2014, 15:05
Edit: I kinda like the idea of campaign based games like Necromunda or whatever where one guy with 2X0 exp vs. another with 2X0 exp. is whole worlds of difference. A captain is a captain in 40k, and his statline doesn't show that he was ever was a company champion, prematurely promoted due to chapter decimation, a latent psyker, or an ex-chaplain; because those examples are all the same across the board, and all created equal.
I like the idea of those things too, but that kind of granularity doesn't gel well with 40k, which is a D6 game by and large without roll modifiers.
There are only 4 real types of ballistic skill- from 2 to 5. I don't know anyone in the game who actually has the stat BS1, so we are left with hitting on 5's 4's 3's and 2's. Since there's no to hit modifiers left in the game, BS 6 and up are really just bonus points on top of the maximum skill which is 5.
Of those, space marine models start at BS3 with the scouts, BS3 representing regular troops and BS2 representing untrained men (conscripts and orks)
By the time you graduate to be a marine you have to be at BS4 level (crack troops)
That leaves one more point of shootiness to gain before you've effectively maxed out.

By contrast, +1 toughness makes such a profound difference to a marine's resilience against small arms you may as well not call them marines any more.

In the first 3rd ed SM dex there were 3 profiles given for force commanders, that of a chapter master (3 wounds) that of a captain (2 wounds) and that of a sergeant-the idea being that sometimes sergeants lead missions. Nobody used the poor bugger.
Eventually 3 wounds became the norm for a captain because that's what everyone was using anyway and the other profiles were dropped.


I kinda disagree on the S/T caps conceptually. It's not really possible for a guardsmen to just suddenly develope S4, sure, but bionics totally exist, which could be used to justify S/T/I & even wounds. Marines might be a common form of gene therapy in the game, but there are vast numbers of technology and chemical treatments to enhance or change physiologies. Then every other faction has daemonic gifts, Orkoid/Tyrranic physiology, is made out of robot/imagination, or something else.

Bionics totally exist and they can certainly be used to boost your S/T. Look at Yarrick and Straken.
Those are outliers however and Al'Rahem, Chenkov, Shaefer, Creed and others manage to lead from the front and have successful careers without being turned into cyborg killing machines.
If you were playing Orks and your Boss got enough cybork upgrades and killy wotsits to surpass Ghazskull, then your boss would be 'arder than the canonical 'ardest ork.
An Ork wot is moar killy and 'arder than Ghaz is completely possible. It's just not likely. And is it necessary to change the galactic Orkoid balance of power to represent how well you are doing in a campaign?
The same stuff applies to Abaddon. Is your commander, blessed by the dark gods, somehow MORE blessed than their special guy? ( in the 3.5 dex, you could build non daemonic-statured princes that would give him a run for him money, but that's another kettle of worms.)

Further, as noted above, BS can only increase so much. Your Colonel might have BS 7 but his plasma pistol still only gets one shot. Unless you're going to start upgrading their weapons too ( My colonel has one eye on the battleplan and one eye on the magnetic coil stability of his plasmacannon!) then people are going to go for the durability or choppy upgrades, because S,T and to a lesser extent WS matter far more.
Straken shows us what a normal (Catachan) man looks like when cybernetically upgraded to +1 toughness.
Imagine late campaign with two guard players when both their colonels have abandoned humanity to become towering robotic Toughness 5 Strength 7 Attacks 6 meat blenders.

Soss
28-10-2014, 19:08
With that in mind I am thinking that some USR might be only available if you choose a certain ability skill upgrade. I do want to try and prevent the same skill upgrade and the same USR being taken by every player in the campaign.

yabbadabba
28-10-2014, 19:42
Imagine late campaign with two guard players when both their colonels have abandoned humanity to become towering robotic Toughness 5 Strength 7 Attacks 6 meat blenders. Why would that happen? Even GWs campaign systems have never done this, only someone with no concept of how a game and a unit should evolve would ever allow such extremes.

=Angel=
28-10-2014, 20:29
Why would that happen? Even GWs campaign systems have never done this, only someone with no concept of how a game and a unit should evolve would ever allow such extremes.

It would be the end result of a system where players interested in results would apply statboost style upgrades.

If an extra point of toughness required straken to become a t-800 with some human bits, two points of toughness (which might be achievable under a statboost system) ought to require your commander to be a brain in a miniature dreadnought.

GWs 40k campaign systems have always leaned towards learning new skills rather than gaining adimantium bones.

202255

Here we see the battlehonour list from the 3rd ed rules. You rolled for one every thousand xp your unit gained.

202258

The system had obvious flaws like a unit without any AT weapons getting tank hunters, but discerning players would reroll or pick something sensible.

The cityfight book had citybased skills to earn like tunnelrats, but it was all very sensible.
The results weren't super balanced either, skilled gunnery was broken on a leman russ for example.

yabbadabba
28-10-2014, 20:55
And yet systems like Mordheim have perfectly reasonable stats increases, that are limited both by rate of access, options for access and the number of times they can be used before a stat get's "maxed". After that there are mechanisms to redistribute that option to skills or other stats.

=Angel=
28-10-2014, 21:49
And yet systems like Mordheim have perfectly reasonable stats increases, that are limited both by rate of access, options for access and the number of times they can be used before a stat get's "maxed". After that there are mechanisms to redistribute that option to skills or other stats.

That's right!
But crucially, they are skirmish systems with dice roll modifiers.

Dice roll modifiers allow a greater range of stats to be meaningful, allowing a better marksman the ability to compensate for cover penalties that would make it near impossible for the average guy.

In necromunda, a ganger could get higher than toughness 4. While they use the same stats as 40k, a stat bump in necromunda is not the same as in 40k.
This is evident when they ported in marines and they were way more powerful than their 40k incarnations.

In 40k, there's simply no real wiggle room for successive upgrades.
Toughness 3 is human.
Toughness 4 is Astartes, extreme bionic reconstruction or alien monster.
Toughness 5 is a daemonprince or plaguemarine.

yabbadabba
28-10-2014, 21:58
I still disagree. You are focusing on, and keep focusing on, toughness, and yes that might not increase without some major input, eg bionics, drugs or gene manipulation (even though people do become "tougher" I can appreciate that it is relative), but stats like LD, I, A, WS, BS - these can increase slightly over the course of a campaign. Even slightly as a single option eg:

Choose one of the following stats to increase by 1. No stat may increase by more than one point above the starting value: WS, BS, I, A, LD

=Angel=
28-10-2014, 23:13
I still disagree. You are focusing on, and keep focusing on, toughness, and yes that might not increase without some major input, eg bionics, drugs or gene manipulation (even though people do become "tougher" I can appreciate that it is relative), but stats like LD, I, A, WS, BS - these can increase slightly over the course of a campaign. Even slightly as a single option eg:

Choose one of the following stats to increase by 1. No stat may increase by more than one point above the starting value: WS, BS, I, A, LD

I do focus on toughness yes.
Because it's the most dramatic change. A hive tyrant or broodlord boosting it's toughness would be significantly harder to kill than the stock model.
A guard commander wouldn't be gaining quite the same benefit, because he has 4 meatshields and toughness 4 is quite a normal value in the game mechanics.

I've discussed ballistic skill before and once you have bs4+, it doesn't really matter anymore, it's all about the gun. Guard commanders get the short stick here, with plasma and hell pistols the heaviest things they can carry.
Of course, if you applied the statboost to the commandsquad as a whole, that opens up possibilities. Tougher bodyguards, more powerful astropath psykers, bs5 plasmagun vets.

A tau battlesuit commander might look at a bs bump for his array of deadly weapons options, but he'd probably go straight for the no brainer toughness boost .

Weaponskill is useful, but strength is better. Weaponskill is primarily a defensive stat, since most models will hit each other on 4s, you want to avoid allowing another character having higher skill and hitting you on 3s.

Strength is good because you can cause more wounds and possibly threaten vehicles. Like toughness, The more strength you have, the more useful a boost is. A powerfist marine goes from 8 to 10, becoming a serious threat to vehicles.
A powersword guard goes to 4, which is nice, but hardly the same thing.

Init is nice when in a challenge because you could strike before an enemy of similar type- chaos lord getting the drop on a sm captain. But if you're using a powerfist or axe, the init boost is wasted and if you're not then you are sacrificing damage to try get your licks in. You're not likely to kill him in one go ( because invuln) and if he brought a fist you are dead anyway.

If you're fighting regular troops or enemy commanders of lower init, the init boost is wasted.

Unless you are guard, where the initiative increase brings you to just above marine initiative, so if you brought a powersword, you can maybe kill one or two before the other 8 or 9 beat you and your cronies into a pulp.

Ld - lots of commanders are at max. Guard can't really benefit as much as they could when leadership bubbles were a thing.
Psykers get a little boost. Maybe librarians? I think they're ld 9.

Attacks are useful. Especially if you had brought a high strength weapon. Or are a tyranid monsterous creature.


Tl;Dr I think a stat boost has issues besides simply juicing up racial statlines.
It offers a lot to some armies and very little to others.

Soss
29-10-2014, 03:56
So would say that in the basic info I posted in the OP it would be better to leave out the option to increase one stat? I am just looking to and some flavor to players warlords and I think I could do that without having the option of stat increases.

Using the option with stat increases I was thinking of limiting certain USRs to be only accessible by taking a certain stat increase. So a Tau commander might want a toughness increase but could not get ranged type USRs due to those type being unlocked by a BS stat increase.

In the campaign codex relics are unique to all of your warlords. So as a Tau player all of your commanders could not be toolbox styles or have the 2+ Armour.

So how the wounded chart is set up once a warlord dies in a game he automaticlly loses either 1 toughness or wound, plus has to roll so there is a chance to lose one more toughness or wound. In my army Belial died in game and now has -2 toughness and -1 strength. So while a stat increase might seem OP it can be taken away pretty easy. And with each kill of a Warlord being worth 1 CAmpaign Victory Point an opponent could be happy just trying to kill the warlord.

yabbadabba
29-10-2014, 07:38
So would say that in the basic info I posted in the OP it would be better to leave out the option to increase one stat? I am just looking to and some flavor to players warlords and I think I could do that without having the option of stat increases.

Using the option with stat increases I was thinking of limiting certain USRs to be only accessible by taking a certain stat increase. So a Tau commander might want a toughness increase but could not get ranged type USRs due to those type being unlocked by a BS stat increase.

In the campaign codex relics are unique to all of your warlords. So as a Tau player all of your commanders could not be toolbox styles or have the 2+ Armour.

So how the wounded chart is set up once a warlord dies in a game he automaticlly loses either 1 toughness or wound, plus has to roll so there is a chance to lose one more toughness or wound. In my army Belial died in game and now has -2 toughness and -1 strength. So while a stat increase might seem OP it can be taken away pretty easy. And with each kill of a Warlord being worth 1 CAmpaign Victory Point an opponent could be happy just trying to kill the warlord. I think that if your opponents are happy with it, you have a nice balance there.

Soss
16-11-2014, 07:11
So I updated the rule set to customize a Warlord and wanted to post it here to see what your thoughts are on this and if you think it can be improved or added too. I wanted to limit what a warlord can choose from a little bit and I also added in cost differences for upgrades depending on characteristic levels. Check it out if you would.

Non-unique Custom Campaign Warlords.
Every non-vehicle Warlord has access to Command Traits and every vehicle Warlord has access to Vehicle Traits. You may choose one other et of traits that you can gain access too. You may choose up to 3 USRs that total no more than 50 Points to add to your Custom Campaign Warlord from a trait you have access too. You may also choose to upgrade one characteristic one time, from a trait you have access too.

Command Traits:

+1 to Leadership: 7to8 5pts, 8to9 10pts, 9to10 15pts

Adamantium Will: 5pts

Bolster Defenses: 5pts

As in Space Marine Codex.
Codex Warlord Trait: 10pts (permanent)

Must pick one warlord trait from your codex or supplement.
Crusader: 5pts

Fear: 5pts

Fearless: 15pts

Orbital Bombardment: 20pts

As in Space Marine Codex.
Preferred Enemy: One faction 10pts or all factions 20pts

Shatter Defenses: 10pts

As in the Chaos Space Marine Codex.
Stubborn: 5pts

Troop Unit: 25pts (may be taken more than once)

You may choose 2 of the same units to become Troop choices. These must be the same unit type as your Warlord.

Vehicle Traits:
+1 Armour Value to one side: AV10to11 10pts, AV11to12 15pts, AV12to13 20pts, AV13to14 25pts (You may purchase this once for each side)

Assault Vehicle: 25pts

Fast: 10pts

Jink: 15pts (Must have the Fast or Fleet USR)

Power of the Machine Spirit: 20pts

Supersonic: 5pts (Must have the Fast USR)

Martial Traits:
+1 to Weapons Skill, Strength or Initiative: 2to3 5pts, 3to4 10pts, 4to5 15pts, 5to6 20pts

Counter-attack: 5pts

Fleet: 10pts

Furious Charge: 5pts

Hammer of Wrath:5pts

Hatred: One faction 5pts or all factions 15pts

Monster Hunter: 5pts

Precision Strikes: 5pts

Rage: 5pts

Rampage: 10pts

Shred(melee only): 15pts

Smash: 20pts

Tank Hunter: 15pts


Ranged Traits:
+1 to Ballistic Skill: 2to3 5pts, 3to4 10pts, 4to5 15pts, 5to6 20pts

Interceptor: 15pts

Missile Lock: 5pts

Monster Hunter: 5pts

Night Vision: 5pts

Precision Shots: 5pts

Relentless: 5pts

Shred (applied to all ranged weapons): 15pts

Skyfire (can choose not to use this before shooting): 10pts

Split Fire: 5pts

Tank Hunter: 15pts


Defensive Traits:
+1 to Toughness: (after bike or mount upgrade)3to4 15pts, 4to5 20pts, 5to6 25pts

Feel no Pain: 3T 15pts, 4T 20pts, 5T 25pts, 6T 30pts (T=Toughness)

Hit and Run: 5pts

It Will Not Die: 2W 10pts, 3W 15pts, 4W 20pts, 5W 25pts (W=Wounds)

Shrouded: 20pts

Stealth: 10pts


Tactical Traits:
Acute Senses: 5pts

Deep Strike: 15pts

Infiltrate: 15pts

Move Through Cover: 10pts

Outflank: 10pts

Scout: 15pts

Skilled Rider: 15pts


Psychic Traits:
Daemon: 15pts
Force: 5pts
Pysker (level 1 or +1): 25pts (Disciplines known are same as in your codex)

Baaltor
17-11-2014, 06:55
Bionics totally exist and they can certainly be used to boost your S/T. Look at Yarrick and Straken.
Those are outliers however and Al'Rahem, Chenkov, Shaefer, Creed and others manage to lead from the front and have successful careers without being turned into cyborg killing machines.

The characters are all outliers. If you look at 40k's models, you'll find a very large percentage of them have bionics, or injuries from absolutely horrific wounds. The veteran/command kits for everyone usually includes a few prosthetics for customization. (extensive) Bionics used to be an upgrade for almost every book, not just orks, because they're that common. It's just a fluke that they haven't reappeared yet, and I wouldn't be surprised to see them reintroduced in any book.


If you were playing Orks and your Boss got enough cybork upgrades and killy wotsits to surpass Ghazskull, then your boss would be 'arder than the canonical 'ardest ork.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree as violently as I can because:

Ghazbag is not the 'ardest ork
-Ghazkull couldn't kill a primarch...
-...Let alone Horus...
-...Let alone Daemonically endowed Horus: The chaos Ascendant...
-...LET ALONE the God-Emperor of mankind, cannonically almost choked to death by a warboss, who I don't think you'll argue: 'must have been 'arder than Ghazkul by a good demi-godhood'
-His codex entry says nothing about his proficiency in combat OR his resilience; let alone the utter supremacy of either!
-His infamy is due to his visionary genius, and success in war; not any ability he possesses
-His bionics are noteworthy, but far from the most potent or extensive (RE: 'Da supaboy')
-His profile is decidedly not superiour; granted it's from a time of GW's making stuff REALLY conservative

Sorry to drop an exterminatus like that on you.

All his special rules and fluff are about how inspiring and driven he is; Until your warboss is getting a 2+ Inv. save on the charge, EW, and buffs the whole army's WAAAGH!!! (changed as of 6th), and has the Prophet of the WAAAGH!!! rule, everything short of that is fair game. And that limit's only because if you stack more rules on top of that he's getting a little cheesy for me. Ghazkull's the pinnacle of what a warboss should be, and Abaddon's the pinnacle of what a chaos lord should be. Make no mistake, they aren't the best in the galaxy, and they definitely aren't the best in history. The same goes for the big bads of the other books, Marneus, Vect etc..


And is it necessary to change the galactic Orkoid balance of power to represent how well you are doing in a campaign?

Yes. I don't think that's the answer you want or expected, but as the French say 'to vanquish without peril is to triumph without glory'. If you can't change the galaxy in your campaign, you have no campaign because you're fighting for nothing. I'm not saying it should be easy, or cheap, or quick (the holy trinity of quality) but I'm saying it should be possible.


Further, as noted above, BS can only increase so much. Your Colonel might have BS 7 but his plasma pistol still only gets one shot. Unless you're going to start upgrading their weapons too...

That's not a bad idea.


...people are going to go for the durability or choppy upgrades, because S,T and to a lesser extent WS matter far more.
Straken shows us what a normal (Catachan) man looks like when cybernetically upgraded to +1 toughness.
Imagine late campaign with two guard players when both their colonels have abandoned humanity to become towering robotic Toughness 5 Strength 7 Attacks 6 meat blenders.

If competitiveness like this is going to be problem, then don't use these rules, they'll only ruin your game. But they won't ruin mine, and they might not ruin the OP's, or even Cotton-Eye Joe's. Options are meant to be chosen, not forced on a person. I don't know what else to say other than if you and/or your friends are going to abuse them this badly, don't try to use them because it's not going to be fun.

=Angel=
17-11-2014, 14:29
The characters are all outliers. If you look at 40k's models, you'll find a very large percentage of them have bionics, or injuries from absolutely horrific wounds. The veteran/command kits for everyone usually includes a few prosthetics for customization. (extensive) Bionics used to be an upgrade for almost every book, not just orks, because they're that common. It's just a fluke that they haven't reappeared yet, and I wouldn't be surprised to see them reintroduced in any book.

Yes, that was my point exactly.
Bionics used to be a common upgrade when I started playing in 3rd ed, though by then they'd been depowered to a 6+ 'We'll be back' type save.
They didn't boost stats.
There's plenty of models and characters who have had bionics ( including calgar) who didnt gain any benefit from them beyond that 6+ save.
In fact, ][nquisitor elaborates that while most bionics will have no notable benefits to the limb replaced, some might be of such low quality as to be a detriment!
That's what I meant by outliers. Bionics are not uncommon, an eye here, an arm there, but they don't generally provide dramatic ingame benefits. Straken and Yarrick are outliers, and even Straken's superhuman stats are only a recent phenomenon in the last codex or two. He wasn't that beefy in 3rd or 4th ed.

My comment about cyborg killing machines was to point out that if Straken had to become Darth Vader'd to provide a single toughness boost, how robotic would your commander have to become to provide two?




I'm going to have to respectfully disagree as violently as I can because:
Ghazskull<Primarch<Emperor<that one Ork warboss who got lucky one time and almost killed the Emperor but didn't



I disagree with that logic. A guardsman can kill Ghaz, doesn't mean he's not the toughest Ork alive. Ghazskull being objectively better than a guardsman (the stats dont lie) wouldn't stop a guard from headshotting him with a lascannon or climbing on his back and strapping meltabombs to him.
Yes there likely were tougher orks during the great crusade, and especially when they were Krork.
My point here is that slapping stats on commanders is lazy and detrimental to the 'truths' of the 40k universe. It doesn't really build narrative, it just feeds expectations of RPG style levelling. Your warboss 'levelling up' to become harder than Ghaz forces a disconnect much in the same way that a player declaring his marines are female marines created by the Ultramarines in secret from loyalist word bearers and nightlords geneseed, and are lead by Roboute Guilleman.


Yes. I don't think that's the answer you want or expected, but as the French say 'to vanquish without peril is to triumph without glory'. If you can't change the galaxy in your campaign, you have no campaign because you're fighting for nothing. I'm not saying it should be easy, or cheap, or quick (the holy trinity of quality) but I'm saying it should be possible.
Ok, right. Generally you wouldnt hold campaigns on Ryza or Tallarn and then at the end declare both overrun by chaos. That would change the existing universe in a way that wouldnt gel with another player joining your group with a Tallarn army, him being told that Tallarn no longer exists.
The goal would be to create your own slice of the universe and affect stuff there, in a way that doesn't need to conflict with existing material and other people's view of the 40k universe - rather than holding necrons v tyranids battles on holy Terra.




That's not a bad idea.
It's not is it? Space marine showed Captain Titus firing a plasmagun and the lore didn't shatter into a thousand shards.
My worry is that there are upper limits to the firepower you could reasonably manage while still commanding a battle.
Thus the example of a Colonel trying to keep the magnetic coils on his Plasmacannon within safe limits while directing the actions of platoons full of men.


If competitiveness like this is going to be problem, then don't use these rules, they'll only ruin your game. But they won't ruin mine, and they might not ruin the OP's, or even Cotton-Eye Joe's. Options are meant to be chosen, not forced on a person. I don't know what else to say other than if you and/or your friends are going to abuse them this badly, don't try to use them because it's not going to be fun.
I'm absolutely a fluff monger. However if you offered me a statboost I'd take toughness everytime* because it's the choice with the most impact on the tabletop.
It's the reasonable choice but the resulting statlines (and implications) wouldn't be.

*Except when there's a fluff issue, like it being attached to the mark of Nurgle and that not making any sense in the context of a Tzeenchian army.

Denny
17-11-2014, 15:12
In necromunda, a ganger could get higher than toughness 4. While they use the same stats as 40k, a stat bump in necromunda is not the same as in 40k.
This is evident when they ported in marines and they were way more powerful than their 40k incarnations.

I'm pretty sure they can't (playing a lot of Necromunda at the moment)

Wasn't there a maximum stat cap of 4 6 6 4 4 3 6 3 9 for humans?

So no ganger in necromunda could ever get higher than toughness 4.

I'd suggest something simialr in a campaign (though race specific caps). No marine can get higher than a chaptermaster for example.
Chaptermasters would therfore have to get USR instead.

EDIT: Noticed I replied to quite an old post, sorry. I have too much necromunda on the brain.

Bonzai
18-11-2014, 04:16
I did something similar here:

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?396793-The-Hydraphur-Campaign-(Iyanden-Eldar)

It's a little bit of a read, but the full campaign rules, fluff, everything can be found there, including round by round coverage. Feel free to borrow what you like from it. It was my first time running and organizing a campaign, and I think it worked very well until people quit to play Bolt Action.

Baaltor
22-11-2014, 12:26
Ah, I'm glad you saw my post. I'm pretty sure I didn't reply right away because when you last wrote I was really busy, but finding this thread again made me regret that. I almost didn't respond because this thread's run so long.


Bionics... They didn't boost stats.

There's plenty of models and characters who have had bionics ( including calgar) who didnt gain any benefit from them beyond that 6+ save.

They were also in the massively conservative 3rd edition that dumbed down extremely complex subjects like the relationships between Strength, Toughness, Saves, Armours (more than one kind), penetration (be mature, lads), and mitigation; as well as well as some of those components themselves. Also Calgar has EW, and an improved profile (or at least he did, not sure now) which may be interpreted by some as a component of his extensive bionics.



In fact, ][nquisitor elaborates that while most bionics will have no notable benefits to the limb replaced, some might be of such low quality as to be a detriment!

Yes, that's pretty reasonable. But consider the fact that guardsmen, the guys equipped with weapons & armours that are specifically designed for ease of logistics, are typically are given bionics that restore them fully, or better than before. In the imperium the poorest of the poor, like Underhivers have access to full restoration, while only the most crippling derelicts are unable to afford proper ones.



[Col. Straken] wasn't that beefy in 3rd or 4th ed.

My comment about cyborg killing machines was to point out that if Straken had to become Darth Vader'd to provide a single toughness boost, how robotic would your commander have to become to provide two?

I just checked the old Catachan codex; he's got S6, and T4 from 'a chest unit & an Arm'. That's not Darth Vader'd by a good arm and a leg... and another leg... and a the contents of his chest. Darth Vader's organs were wholly replaced, using a process derived from General Grievous' surgeries.


I disagree with that logic. A guardsman can kill Ghaz, doesn't mean he's not the toughest Ork alive.

I understand, that's not proof, but you can't deny that it's likely a pretty good indication of the Warboss' puissance. The fact that he got that close to an omnicient, and rather pragmatic, general is also a noteworthy fact.

It's also a little paradoxical to argue that, since the likeylhood of such an event happening decreases exponentially as the strength of the Warboss decreases. But that's just a funny way of looking at it I thought of; it's still a good point.


Ghazskull being objectively better than a guardsman (the stats dont lie) wouldn't stop a guard from headshotting him with a lascannon or climbing on his back and strapping meltabombs to him.

Totally not relevant to this dicussion, but: I kind of think that Ghazkull's invulnerability is due to the power of belief in his invulnerability from himself, his psychic powers, and the WAAAGH!!! in general. So I don't think he could die to that, because he's got 8 feet thick plot armour; the best kind of armour.


It doesn't really build narrative, it just feeds expectations of RPG style levelling. Your warboss 'levelling up' to become harder than Ghaz forces a disconnect much in the same way that a player declaring his marines are female marines created by the Ultramarines in secret from loyalist word bearers and nightlords geneseed, and are lead by Roboute Guilleman.

I think you're extrapolating a bit much here, I'm actually probably just against 'leveling up' as you are. There are lots of limits I'd impose on this sort of thing, maybe even limiting it to between campaigns. Like I said earlier, I didn't think injuries were suitable to ongoing campaigns, and I feel the same way about skills or gear or whatever.



[A Tallarni player wouldn't enjoy hearing his homeworld was destroyed

You're right. You know that's a good thing though, right?

In Canada we say 'people don't listen to stories to feel good, we listen to feel'. A dramatic story that evokes an emotion is an effective one: a Tallarn player's upset that he's now the equivalent of Tanith's first and only? He was powerless to stop the destruction, and everyone his commander knew back home, wife, kids, family, relatives, friends are dead? Awesome.

Of course if for whatever reason that's too much of a problem, you could retcon it. 40k's a satire of Sci-fi, a genre which is full of stupid panic-button reversals. On Star Trek for example you can be sure that 95/100 of any 'death's in the family (lol get it?) will turn out to be a mislead, or the character was cloned, is a clone, or the Katra is returned to a new vessel....


The goal would be to create your own slice of the universe and affect stuff there, in a way that doesn't need to conflict with existing material and other people's view of the 40k universe - rather than holding necrons v tyranids battles on holy Terra.

That's a story. We're talking about a setting. The forty first millenium. The point of a setting like 40k has been explicitly stated by the creators to be a playground for you to do as you choose. I was going to drag out a bunch of quotes of people saying this, but I'm at work, and need to get back, so I'm hoping you'll either remember a few, or believe me. If you don't, I can dredge up some stuff later, or maybe someone else can do (or has done) my dirty work.

Even if you don't take the words of the creators to heart, consider how every faction is supposed to be the doom of man in the now. Orkz: have a massive unstoppable WAAAGH!!! that is about to crush humanity, Chaos: Abaddon has launched the 13th Black Crusade, the greatest in history. The Primarchs, who've mostly never left the Eye have for the first time assembled again under his banner. The greatest battles in history are about to be fought, and they're set up for you to decide how they end. You've been provided with campaign books, and a list of battles, and wars to resolved.


I'm absolutely a fluff monger. However if you offered me a statboost I'd take toughness everytime* because it's the choice with the most impact on the tabletop.
It's the reasonable choice but the resulting statlines (and implications) wouldn't be.

*Except when there's a fluff issue, like it being attached to the mark of Nurgle and that not making any sense in the context of a Tzeenchian army.

Okay, well all things considered, even if some things are better, can't we just use points to solve disparity like this? Not everything needs to be created even, after all.