|
Post by commissargaunt on Jul 30, 2009 17:35:48 GMT -5
This is the new incarnation of the overcomplicated Codex:PDF basically this is for building lists that play like the old Kanak Skull Takers. However This list will be a very capable combat GEQ list without resorting to becoming like Orks or Eldar. So I hereby Present the first unit of Codex: Feral Worlds! HQ Warlord 40pts Ws Bs S T W A I Ld Sv 5 4 3 3 3 3 3 9 6+ Weapons/Wargear: close combat Weapon, shield, basic armour Upgrades: Weapons or upgrades marked with * may not be taken if mounted on a steed. Light armour(5+ save)-5pts Plate armour(4+ save)-10pts Steed (counts as cavalry)-10pts Armoured Steed (+1 to Armour save counts as cavalry)-20pts The Warlord may exchange either his shield or close combat weapon for: Additional Close combat weapon-free lance(close combat weapon, furious charge)-10pts Combat pistol-5pts The warlord may replace his shield and close combat weapon for: Bow-free Crossbow-free *Blackpowder Rifle-5pts *Marksman's Rifle-15pts Special Rules: Valiant Leader: Weather it be by bravery, charismatic leadership or fear the Warlord drives the men around him forwards to greater feats of bravery and sacrifice. All unmounted warriors in a unit joined by the warlord, excluding the warlord himself, gain the Furious charge USR and may use his leadership for morale and pinning tests. Independent Character Shield: this piece of Wargear grants the warlord a 4+ armour save in close combat. Hard to Kill: the first wound inflicted against the warlord that would normally cause instant death instead only causes one wound. All subsequent instant death wounds are resolved as normal.
|
|
|
Post by commissargaunt on Jul 30, 2009 17:44:24 GMT -5
Rules for the so far posted ranged weapons:
Combat pistol: 12" str 3 ap- Pistol
Bow: 18" str 3 ap- rapid fire
Crossbow: 24" str 3 ap- Heavy 1
Blackpowder Rifle: 36" str 4 ap - Heavy 1 rending
Marksman's Rifle: 36" str X ap 4 Heavy 1 pinning, rending. (wounds on 4+)
Any comments or critiques you have would be very much appreciated
|
|
|
Post by Makarova (M.I.A) on Jul 30, 2009 17:58:22 GMT -5
Hmm, a few thoughts if I may.
Give him WS 5, it's well deserved. I like the armour options. A steed that gives +1 armour save is a bit odd though, I think you should keep it as a "normal" 40K steed and just let him count as cavalry. Lances should give +1 S on the charge, there's just no way to justify it having more S in a prolonged melee (to begin with lances are usually broken and discarded after the initial charge). The flail/mace giving WS doesn't make much sense really. None of them are very balanced weapons in general, and certainly more clumsy and less controllable to use than a sword. A maces advantage lies in blunt, armour-scorning impact and a flails advantage lies in blunt, spiked, armour-scorning tremendous impact (has its obvious disadvantage though). I don't know what your pistols do, but I think they should be combined into one profile as there isn't -that- much difference between a pistol and a crossbow pistol (even if the crossbow pistol is less powerful than people generally think).
But well, some ideas for weapons.
Halberd/Longaxe/Greatsword: Two-handed, +1 S. Old CMS Great Weapon. Spear: Always strikes first. Shield: Counts as combat shield.
Have the Valiant Leader include mounted units as well, it's not like they're -that- much better than infantry. Plus, Khan-whatever-pointy-hats get it on his boys. I like the Hard To Kill rule, though you may want to find a more suitable name.
Hmm, you need some ideas for ranged weapons as well. They should have a weaker profile than a lasgun, it's well deserved when they get a whole codex.
Bow: 24" S3 Ap - Assault 1 Crossbow: 24" S4 Heavy 1
And a special rule that prevents them from charging if having fired the weapons. Could be replaced to make them Rapid Fire, but not allow the extra shot at close range. And note that those referred to typical medieval military weapons, if you buy some modern snazz for the crossbow it could act a lot different, including being Assault rather than Heavy.
|
|
|
Post by Scarper on Jul 30, 2009 17:59:09 GMT -5
Nice idea! I'm kind of surprised a bow can do the same damage as a lasgun though - you'd think humanity would have advanced a little in the 45odd thousand years since we started using them EDIT: Ugh, comment ninja'd. And with a far more indepth and insightful comment. Curses.
|
|
|
Post by Makarova (M.I.A) on Jul 30, 2009 18:06:08 GMT -5
Rules for the so far posted ranged weapons: Blackpowder pistol: 8" str 4 ap - pistol*may only be fired every other turn Crossbow pistol: 12" str 3 ap - pistol Bow: 24" str 3 ap- Heavy 2 Crossbow: 18" str 3 ap- Assault 1 Blackpowder Rifle: 18" str 4 ap - Heavy 1 Marksman's Rifle: 36" str X ap 4 Heavy 1 pinning, rending. (wounds on 4+) Any comments or critiques you have would be very much appreciated Rightie. Allowing the pistol to only shoot every other round is realistic, but a bit too complicated in my opinion. I still prefer a combined profile for them. Pistol: 12 S3 Ap - Pistol After all, even though a blackpowder pistols bullet is large, it's not produced at anywhere the velocity of a modern battle rifle and is certainly not as destructive as a bolter or shoota overall. Bows doesn't make much sense really, you should be able to be more mobile with them. I prefer Assault 1, because it's more streamlined than assuming that your guys always bombard the enemy from afar standing still. The crossbow is unrealistic as hell. They had longer range than any non-flight bow, and were more powerful as well. Maybe not powerful enough to gain S4 (I went a bit over the edge, I'm tired) though. It should definitely not be Assault though, while it's easy to fire one bolt on the move, you have to reload the thing as well. And that takes time. I feel there could be a combined profile for the crossbow and musket. Your blackpowder rifle is too powerful (see pistol), and anything but a shoddy matchlock arquebus would have 24-30" range. Marksman's Rifle works I suppose, but do note that it'd have to represent a finely crafted rifled hunting rifle with a scope, those didn't came in effect until the 19th century. Works for 40K though, even if the rifling is a bit over the top for barbarians. I like that you kept it the same stats as something existing though, always do that whenever you can.
|
|
|
Post by Makarova (M.I.A) on Jul 30, 2009 18:08:46 GMT -5
Since the effective range of a self-bow is less than WHFB would have it, I suggest this:
Bow: 18" S3 Ap - Assault 1, may nor charge. Crossbow/Musket: 24" S3 Ap 6 Heavy 1
|
|
|
Post by commissargaunt on Jul 30, 2009 18:13:19 GMT -5
Okay back to the various CC weapons:
Mace+flail I figure its just easier to hit stuff with them (just kinda flail at the enemy) thats why i granted it +1 Ws.
I'm keeping the VL rule to unmounted units because most mounted units will be Str 4 because of lances anyways.
Musket ranges are short to represent how hard it is to hit anything farther away from them than that. Basic ranged troops will be Bs 3 so this will accurately represent the shots becoming horribly inaccurate after more than say 60 yards or so.
I have modified the ranged weapons amalgamating the pistols into a "combat pistol" and making changes to the rest of the weapons bar the Marksman's Rifle.
the HTK Special rule is because no units will have an Invuln save so this will counteract that disadvantage.
|
|
|
Post by Makarova (M.I.A) on Jul 30, 2009 18:17:38 GMT -5
Reasonable, but you should still change the S of the muskets as now you're assuming it's as destructive as a .50 cal fired from a machine gun. Or even worse, a bolter. The reason I have the musket and the crossbow Ap 6 is because both weapons are very good at penetrating armour, at point blank a typical wheellock/snaplock musket can penetrate most types of plate armour. And that's not mentioning the later flintlock weapons.
Oh, and the flail. No-no. To begin with a mace isn't a flail. True, it's easier to get around shields and parries with a flail, but they're also hard to control and use effectively.
And I still think shields should count as combat shields, hence allowing Invulnerable saves.
But these are just my opinions.
|
|
|
Post by commissargaunt on Jul 30, 2009 18:29:00 GMT -5
I know the mace isn't a flail I meant a mace OR flail, they grant the same bonus, again what You say kind of backs me up on this point. Its harder to parry or shield from a flail thus it is easier to hit your enemy with one if you know how to use it (which we assume our warlord does) thus a higher Ws.
The warlord Won't get a spear (not a very leaderly weapon really) but other units will.
Muskets will stay at Str 4 ap-. If a lasgun can't penetrate Ork armour a musket certainly can't. However the slower, bigger,lead projectile a musket fires does give it a much bigger punch than most modern weapons that use relatively small bullets. In sheer kinetic energy a musket shot would come close to being hit by a .50 cal because of the heavy,soft , projectile that imparts a lot of kinetic energy.
A combat shield grants an invulnerable save because it incorporates a mini force field. Where are barbarians going to get one of those? Shields will stay as a 4+ save in CC.
|
|
|
Post by commissargaunt on Jul 30, 2009 18:43:34 GMT -5
HQ Lieutenant 20points Ws Bs S T W A I Ld Sv 5 3 3 3 2 2 3 8 6+
Unit size: 1-5 Lieutenants at 20 points each
Weapons/Wargear: close combat weapon, shield, basic armour
Upgrades:
Weapons or upgrades marked with * may not be taken if mounted on a steed.
Light armour(5+ save)-5pts per model Plate armour(4+ save)-10pts per model Steed (counts as cavalry)-5pts per model Armoured Steed (+1 to Armour save counts as cavalry)-15pts
Any Lieutenant may exchange either his shield or close combat weapon for: Additional close combat weapon-free lance(close combat weapon, furious charge)-5pts Combat pistol-5pts
Any Leiutenant may replace his shield and close combat weapon for: Bow-free *Crossbow-free *Blackpowder Rifle-5pts
Special Rules: Usurper: If the Army Includes a Warlord and he is killed roll a D6,on a roll of a 1 he has been betrayed by one of his most trusted Lieutenants and led into a trap! The opposing player immediately gains control of one randomly determined Lieutenant.
Heroes: Oblivious to the petty squabbling of the higher social classes the dog soldiers look upon the inner circles of the ruling class with awe and respect. All friendly models within 6" (12" if the Lieutenants are mounted) may use their Ld for Morale or pinning tests.
|
|
xthetenth
Lieutenant
Arty for the arty god, pie for the pie throne
Posts: 121
|
Post by xthetenth on Jul 30, 2009 18:52:32 GMT -5
Muskets will stay at Str 4 ap-. If a lasgun can't penetrate Ork armour a musket certainly can't. However the slower, bigger,lead projectile a musket fires does give it a much bigger punch than most modern weapons that use relatively small bullets. In sheer kinetic energy a musket shot would come close to being hit by a .50 cal because of the heavy,soft , projectile that imparts a lot of kinetic energy. There's one problem there. You're forgetting slow. Musket balls travelled slowly, and that robs them of a lot of kinetic energy. The chassepot rifle the french used during the franco-prussian war in the late 1800s had a muzzle velocity of 410 m/s while the m4 carbine has a muzzle velocity of 880 m/s. KE = 1/2mv^2. So the ball fired by the chassepot would have to have 4 times the mass to have the same kinetic energy, and I don't think it did. Also, terminal ballistics are more important than either consideration, and I'm pretty sure that if a modern rifle can outperform a musket badly, then a lasgun can beat it soundly. Plus, lasguns can fire in bursts rapidly enough that I think the 'shots' are actually likely an abstraction of multiple potential shots. I strongly disagree with s4 being available in this list except for great weapons and the like. A lance I could see being s5 on the charge though, it would have a lot of momentum behind it.
|
|
|
Post by commissargaunt on Jul 30, 2009 18:58:29 GMT -5
Troops
Infantry Formation 40points
Ws Bs S T W A I Ld Sv 4 2 3 3 1 2 3 7 6+
Unit size: 10 Infantrymen
Weapons/wargear: Close combat weapon, basic armour
Upgrades: May take up to an additional 20 Infantrymen for +4pts each
Light armour(5+ save)-2pts per model Plate armour(4+ save)-5pts per model
All Infantrymen may take a shield for +1 pts per model
All Infantryman may exchange or add to their close combat weapons: Additional close combat weapon-free Combat pistol-1 pt per model
All Infantrymen without a shield or additional hand weapon may exchange their close combat weapons for: Spear(Doubles the unit's initiative for the first turn of combat)-2pts per model Halberd (Unit gains Furious charge)-2pts per model Pike (Doubles the unit's initiative for the first turn of combat and gains +1 strength if charged)-3pts per model Two handed weapon (+1 strength)-2pts per model
|
|
|
Post by commissargaunt on Jul 30, 2009 19:03:34 GMT -5
I am not changing the musket profile. It has more stopping power than a lasgun because of the big heavy lead musket balls they fire.
To clear this up once and for all the muskets I am describing will be huge, heavy, man portable mini-cannons on small stands to justify their strength. Not simply "normal" muskets which would be better represented by the crossbow profile.
If There is no difference between the musket and the bow apart from the bow being better why would anyone choose to take a unit with muskets even if it is a bit cheaper? It would be less mobile (heavy weapons) and have less potential for shots, being heavy 1 instead of rapid fire.
|
|
|
Post by Lord General Armstrong on Jul 31, 2009 3:12:14 GMT -5
so are you going to model the musket after a hand cannonear.
|
|
|
Post by Makarova (M.I.A) on Jul 31, 2009 4:40:22 GMT -5
Gaunt, your logic is flawed. A flail might make it easier to hit an opponet, but it's certainly not qualified for +1 Ws. And like I said, flails are unbalanced. Plus it just seems a bit odd to give one obscure one-handed weapon a special rule and nothing else. Plus, no other flails in the game have the special rule, and it's definitely not needed.
Halberds have no reason to give the unit Furious Charge, and are best represented as a great weapon.
Spears are good, but change them to double the initiative of the unit instead. It's more 40K as the ASF rule doesn't properly exist, but things that double your Ini does. Also I think you should make them two-handed, and drop the pikes to combine them into one profile. A unit armed with spears doesn't behave -that- differently from a pike unit.
Change the blackpowder gun name to "swivel gun", then I'll buy S4. However, a swivel gun deserves at least 24".
And I still think the crossbow deserves Ap 6, to make it least slightly more destructive than a bow. Seriously, if it could penetrate plate armour it can penetrate anything giving a 6+ save in 40K.
I still don't agree on the steeds giving an armour save, it's too WHFB. You want to make this book as 40K as possible, and that means doing what GW did before you, and that's cavalry without any extras.
Also, that applies to the shields as well. Sure a combat shield has a force field, but the old Cyberaug doctrine gave troopers a 6+ invulnerable because the shot might hit their bionic finger and not kill them. Plus, it's GW's policy for 40K shields is to have them give an inv save, you should stick by that as much as possible. Generally, it makes the list more 40K and won't make a huge difference, even if it's slightly unrealistic (which is hard to avoid in a sci-fi game).
What I'm trying to do is to help you make the list actually look like a 40K list rather than a WHFB army list played with 40K rules.
|
|
|
Post by commissargaunt on Jul 31, 2009 5:11:44 GMT -5
Flails have been changed to "additional CC weapons".
Halberds are staying as Furious charge. A great weapon here always gives you +1 strength. The Halberd having FC represents the greater reach (+1 I)and power of the weapon(+1 S) when swung on the charge. However once in combat the halberd becomes harder to use as it is large and cumbersome, so they lose the bonus. THIS IS NOT CHANGING. I was simply explaining my logic.
The crossbow will remain Ap- A lasgun has Ap- so why should a crossbow have any more penetrating power?
The steed has been changed to just cavalry however I have introduced the "armored steed" which is more expensive and gives cavalry and +1 to saves.
Shields will remain 4+ Sv in CC. There will be minimum-no invulnerable saves. A combat shield is made of armaplas or other 40k materials and has a conversion field around it. These are wooden/metal shields. Why would a piece of wood present as much trouble to a power weapon as a force field? This is also NOT changing.
|
|
|
Post by Makarova (M.I.A) on Jul 31, 2009 5:38:34 GMT -5
A halberd, like I said, isn't more effective on the charge than anywhere else in a combat. The long handle actually makes is slightly unwieldy when charging, a claymore or danish axe would probably allow a greater impact. So well, I still say they are better represented as great weapons, but in the end it's your book.
The crossbow would have greater penetration to make it different from the bow, and I'm not too sure a medieval (400 pound draw weight) crossbow wouldn't have more penetrating power than a lasgun.
Armoured steed works.
If you insist on having the shield give an armour save, it should be less than a 4+. It's not like a banded wooden shield would do anything to stop a chainsword. It could probably direct the attack away from you (like shields were designed to do), but it would most likely be thrashed and become unusable. Maybe you could just have it give +1 to the models armour save like it does in WHFB.
Don't forget to do something about the lances. If you think a halberd becomes cumbersome and difficult to handle in a thick melee, imagine what a lance would become (useless). You could give them Furious Charge, +1 Ini and Str is actually a good representation.
And for the love of the Emperor, change the range of that swivel gun.
|
|
|
Post by Kaikelx on Jul 31, 2009 12:02:10 GMT -5
The crossbow will remain Ap- A lasgun has Ap- so why should a crossbow have any more penetrating power? Because lasguns essentially would have to rely on sheer heat to penetrate armor, and the heat required, along with the time needed to melt through it, would make it waste of ammo. The reason the are effective against soft targets (Unarmored Humans for example) would have to be because the heat is intense enough to essentially "burn" a hole through the target, but not intense enough to burn through armor plating. Meanwhile, a Crossbow has kinetic force behind it, meaning that it can have the force needed to just plain punch right through armor. Also, could you explain your reasoning behind the shields? I'm just slightly confused on your fluff reasoning.
|
|
|
Post by kellysgrenadier on Jul 31, 2009 12:13:24 GMT -5
You could have a bow upgrade. Upgrade bow to longbow. Two profiles, much like a missile launcher.
Str 3, AP 6, Assault 2, 24'' Str -, Ap 6, Sniper 1, 24''
Or, hey! A unit of longbowmen could have this profile:
Str 3, AP6, barrage 3, small blast, 36''
Represents a hail of arrows, no?
''I can fire accurately, or I can fire long''
- Some Welsh longbowman.
|
|
|
Post by Makarova (M.I.A) on Jul 31, 2009 12:19:04 GMT -5
Too complicated. And Assault 3 is absurd for a self-bow.
|
|
|
Post by kellysgrenadier on Jul 31, 2009 12:22:27 GMT -5
Not quite absurd, I don't think. Longbowmen were trained to put at least 2 arrows into the air in battle.
- I concede. Assault 2 would be better. Changes made.
|
|
|
Post by Makarova (M.I.A) on Jul 31, 2009 12:26:05 GMT -5
What kind of longbowmen? Long self bows have been used by a lot of nations during history.
Besides, have any idea how many bullets you could put in the air with an automatic rifle if they travelled at the same speed as an arrow?
Assault 1 is seriously the only thing that would work for a bow, or Rapid Fire without getting the extra shot at 12". Otherwise they shoot just as fast as a lasgun or autogun, or even faster. Both are absurd.
|
|
|
Post by kellysgrenadier on Jul 31, 2009 12:29:20 GMT -5
English and Welsh bowmen, of course. The masters of longbows Naturally, automatic rifles are going to put more projectiles into the air than any medieval bow 40k, by nature is not a complex wargame. Taking into consideration the speed of an arrow in comparison to a laser beam or bullet adds an unnecessary level of detail. Otherwise they shoot just as fast as a lasgun or autogun, or even faster. Both are absurd. You misunderstand. That is not a point I'm trying to make. Sometimes you need to simplify the characteristics of a weapon, realistic or not. It's just a game. It's not quite as cut-and-dry as you're making it out.
|
|
|
Post by Makarova (M.I.A) on Jul 31, 2009 12:33:22 GMT -5
I'm all for simplification, but you make a bow better than a lasgun. A lot better even.
|
|
|
Post by kellysgrenadier on Jul 31, 2009 12:34:40 GMT -5
Quite readily I'll admit that.
|
|