Jump to content

Brother Sidonius

+ FRATER DOMUS +
  • Posts

    78
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Brother Sidonius

Profile Information

  • Location
    New South Wales, Australia
  • Interests
    Tournament and narrative play.
    Hunting witches.
  • Faction
    Black Templars, Grey Knights

Previous Fields

  • Armies played
    Black Templars, Grey Knights

Recent Profile Visitors

141 profile views

Brother Sidonius's Achievements

  1. I've made them rules but I haven't exactly built them yet... The plan is it use a mix of bits from our terminators, some custodes and a 3d printer for a modern take on the first GK terminators. I've got a particular fondness for the integrated bolters on the orginal models
  2. Amazing write up. I'd read a whole book that followed the Crimson Grasp
  3. Greetings again brothers! It's been a long time but I'm back in the hobby and it's been on my mind for a while to make a post showing my appreciation to the community here so here it is. No one could have known this but when I first joined Bolter and Chainsword I was chronically ill and pretty much bed bound. The two things I had in abundance was pain and time, and I found that spending my time writing stories and game rules distracted me from the pain so that's how I spent most of my days. I started uploading my attempts at game design here, and although looking back my work was quite amateur, I recieved nothing but encouragement and helpful critique. At the beginning of last year I started getting better. I was able to move to a new town, start a new job, and was even able to start a family. Needless to say, I haven't been writing many rules or playing many games since then but I've always thought back fondly on my time here and wanted to ley you all know. You guys are awesome :)
  4. Greetings brothers! Work and a baby have kept me from the hobby the last year or two but I've been getting back into it with the launch of 10th ed. Anyway, I was playing around with the Index cards adding the points values to them for easy reference, and it turns out you can just edit the text if you own the font.... So without further ado, I present the datasheet for Oldhammer 40k Grey Knight terminators in 10th edition! It's literally just 5 librarians because that's what my head cannon is for them so I'd probably run them as a 500 point unit. It's just a little edit but it makes me excited for the potential fandexs we'll see in this edition :) Rogue Trader Grey Knight Terminators 10th ed.pdf
  5. Just found winters SEO gaping opinion on 9th edition, which includes some great ideas in my opinion. Not sure how to embed videos so here's the link to the video: https://youtu.be/5w40NRPE48w Basically, he wants the game to be more accessible for more people, which is also what I want, so I'm glad I found the video. Here's his summary of the changes he's like to make: Indexes for every edition [until the codices are released]. Simplified rules AND less of them. If you want added complexity, add it to the tournament matched play mission pack. All the rules for a Codex is in the Codex. More ways to play. I think you're forgetting the downside of the 2nd edition Strategy Cards. Some of them were "I win", like the strafing run, while most were generally useless. So that random list didn't add anything to the game, it literally ended games before they began because of the luck of the draw. The fixed list of what each army has is sooooo much better. The biggest problem with Stratagems is that they are supposed to be worth 30 points each, but are worth nowhere near that most of the time. Vengeance for Cadia? Way more than 30 points. Take Cover on guard Infantry? Waaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyy less than 30 points (it's more like 8 points). Most -1 to hit are probably in the 30 point range and are probably in the range of what stratagems should be. But the Admech MW strat on Infantry doing 15 MWs (before FAQ) to Mortarion was almost 300 points. So stratagems aren't inherently bad, but the lack of balance in them is what's causing the problem. That being said, the same could be true for the current 4 Dakkajet Ork list, with 36 shots each able to target pretty much anything on the board for 120 points a model. Strats or not, it's the lack of the internal balance and playtesting that's the problem. OP Strats, Dakkajets, D2 Drukari flamers and AdMech are just the symptoms. The one use stratagems idea is cool. Perhaps Command Points become a currency that you spend on one use abilities before the game? For example, in a Patrol game you could buy the Orbital Bombardment stratagem when mustering your army and not have to worry about keeping track of Stratagems during the game.
  6. I like the idea of order of units, however, could I suggest that the Elites get to choose when they activate?* Thematically, as they as 'more experienced' or such they should be able to read the battlefield and hit when and where needed. * - Of course, this then complicates a simple rule structure. So yeah... Following on from the activation idea, what if we simplified it to just Characters fight first? That would actually play closer to Oldhammer since Characters typically had higher initiative. And with regard to stratagems, what if when mustering your army you also chose 7 stratagems as your 'hand' for the game. You can only play the Stratagems in your hand and the Core Stratagems, which would include an additional Stratagem you can play to alter your hand once you see your opponents army. Battle Brother Abderus came up with this one and called it "No Plan Survives Contact with the Enemy".
  7. The balancing issue with everyone Fighting simultaneous is that combat that is already brutal becomes a bloodbath. To stop everyone just wiping each other out, you’d have to tone down the damage in melee and have the Moral phase pick it up. Buffing units that charged would exacerbate the problem so the only solution I see is to debuff units that are charged. The simple way to do this is to have a rule like “When a unit is charged, subtract 1 from the Attacks characteristic of that unit (to a minimum of 1)”. You’re guaranteed to be able to fight back but won’t be as effective
  8. It’s great seeing so many different opinions being shared on this subject and I’m enjoying reading what different people enjoy most about the game :) Although some of the suggestions are simply too big to add to 9th, I’ve collated some of the smaller changes that could be easily added. Let me know what you think :) TLDR; Moral makes more sense, blast markers but they don’t slow down the game, units Fight simultaneously, no more random damage. 1. Moral Overhaul. - If a unit fails Moral while in combat, it is ‘Broken’. Model’s don’t flee the combat, instead their defence slips leaving them open to additional loses. Use the Moral rules found in the 9th ed rulebook. - If a unit fails Moral while not in combat, it is ‘Pinned’. Until the end of the next turn, each time an attack is made by that unit, subtract 1 from the hit roll. In addition, subtract 2 from the Move characteristic of that unit and Charge rolls made for that unit. 2. Shooting Phase - Use Blast Markers to calculate the number of attacks for Blast weapons. Roll to hit and wound normally. - Use Flamer Templates for flame weapons. They can’t target Super Sonic units (if you can’t charge it, you can’t flamer it). 3. Initiative Steps (Lite) - 3 initiative steps: First, Normal, and Last (for units that Fight first, normally and last respectively). - Casualties are removed at the end of an Initiative Step. 4. Marked for Death - Weapons with random damage instead have two damage values: one for a normal wound and one for an unmodified wound roll of 6 (Marked for Death!). - E.g. A Lascannon becomes Heavy 1 D3/6 for an average damage of 3.5.
  9. Seems that most people agree that 9th edition is a solid edition but the Moral phase, Stratagems and Secondaries could be improved. With regards to Moral, what do people think about a hybrid system? If you fail Moral while within Engagement Range of an enemy unit Moral happens normally. But if you’re not within Engagement Range of any enemy units you have to make a Fallback move along the shortest path to your board edge
  10. The one and only B Bone. No matter what sort of day I had he always made me smile :)
  11. We have done this. For many years TOs made balance decisions on their own to varying success. Community builders have long struggled to keep 40k relevant despite the rules. Meet frontline gaming. It was does and will be used at tournaments. 9th represents gw attempting to reclaim the bleeding edge of their own ip. Mixed success? I assume you're referring to the incredible ITC tournament format? There's none better for playing a balanced tournament format, but my idea is to 'patch' the datasheets and stratagems to bring balance. I haven't come across anything like that before
  12. I think secondaries have a place in tournament and competitive matched play but in your average games I agree they slow the game down and don't make much sense. Perhaps restricting non-competitive games to just 1 secondary? They'd act more as flavour and a tie breaker if it's a close game. Yeah I agree with the Codex specific secondaries wrecking balance. They certainly don't belong in tournament play. I don't disagree but I also don't know what balanced alternatives there are. What would you do to make the Moral phase relevant? I think the question to ask is what purpose does the Moral phase serve in the game. At the moment I think it's supposed to balance the use of large units that benefit more from stratagems by adding risk of Moral losses. I've never thought of that! I'm going to have to do some play testing to see what it's like
  13. I'm on a Crusade to remove all derp and cheese from 40k and I'm starting with the Core Book itself. So the question I have for you is this: If you could add/change/remove one thing in the 9th edition Core Book, what would it be?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.