V3.0 Warband Creation Update

[Nihidealist]

Very interested in what you're doing here. I'll read through the details of the latest version tonight, now that I'm caught up on the thread. A few quick ideas I'd like to mention;

1 - Mechanicus Magos = Ork Mek?, Mechanicus Genetor = Dark Eldar Hamonculous? Imagine the fun with conversions that could be had if you include some baseline rules for some small, basic, bulky and giant constructs/ghollams, possibly replacing the need for separate profiles for things like servo skulls, drones and various battle automata. Maybe allow players to pay for basic upgrades to wetware, or even better, include such upgrades on rare trade tables, so that late game constructs remain viable.


2 - Wyrds with major powers should be elite only, by default, with leader and maybe heavy exceptions made for inquisition, chaos cults, etc. Minor powered wyrds should not be limited in general (as in most company, they may never even be identified).


3 - Replace "initiate" with "auxiliary". Limit all servitors, drones, servo-skulls, familiars, etc to the auxiliary slot, along with classic juves/FNGs/Yoofs. Servitors and other mindless beings can "work", but cannot "work a territory", since that requires more supervisional skills, rather than mere menial labour ability.

4 - My personal favorite, from a long history of reusing older gangs for new players. Allow leaders/elites take buy a piece of rare equipment in lieu of their skill choice at creation (though still paying for it's base cost, of course). Depending on how trade tables are worked out though, there might not be a point,

Anyway, hope some of that is helpful. Sorry if it's scattered and chaotic.

 

[Tiny]

Thanks for the comments @Nihidealist

1 - Mechanicus Magos = Ork Mek?, Mechanicus Genetor = Dark Eldar Hamonculous? Imagine the fun with conversions that could be had if you include some baseline rules for some small, basic, bulky and giant constructs/ghollams, possibly replacing the need for separate profiles for things like servo skulls, drones and various battle automata. Maybe allow players to pay for basic upgrades to wetware, or even better, include such upgrades on rare trade tables, so that late game constructs remain viable.

This seems like a lot more work than I can muster only to add minimal gain for some very niche warbands. By all means if you want to come up with stat-lines for such things and a way to add them in a reasonable straightforward fashion, I'm open to suggestions. Remember we're trying to create a system which combines Necromunda and Inquisitor games, not create rules to encompass everything in the 40k universe.

EDIT: The more I think about it, a Haemonculus coven list would just be too easy to not add to the mechanicus list. Just need to use Gholams instead of Servitors and Eldar instead of other species. Will add that as an option.

2 - Wyrds with major powers should be elite only, by default, with leader and maybe heavy exceptions made for inquisition, chaos cults, etc. Minor powered wyrds should not be limited in general (as in most company, they may never even be identified).

I like this. I am already thinking of making all of the special "elite" skills separate to the warbands as I could see other warbands wanting a Preacher or an Officer type, not just the ones they appear in. Psyker would just be an elite skill the same as any other but cost additional credits / upgrade slots. Anyone got any thoughts on this?

3 - Replace "initiate" with "auxiliary". Limit all servitors, drones, servo-skulls, familiars, etc to the auxiliary slot, along with classic juves/FNGs/Yoofs. Servitors and other mindless beings can "work", but cannot "work a territory", since that requires more supervisional skills, rather than mere menial labour ability.

Servitors need to be in all ranks, purely from a stat-line perspective. They cannot gain XP and limiting servitors to WS/BS2 means Praetorians, Gun Servitors or Combat Servitors cannot be used. There is an argument for not allowing servitors to work territories but that can be a stipulation on the servitor species rather than the warbands themselves.

4 - My personal favorite, from a long history of reusing older gangs for new players. Allow leaders/elites take buy a piece of rare equipment in lieu of their skill choice at creation (though still paying for it's base cost, of course). Depending on how trade tables are worked out though, there might not be a point,

I like this idea. This would fit nicely into a group of general "elite skills" (see wyrds above).

 

[Lysimachus]

I like this. I am already thinking of making all of the special "elite" skills separate to the warbands as I could see other warbands wanting a Preacher or an Officer type, not just the ones they appear in. Psyker would just be an elite skill the same as any other but cost additional credits / upgrade slots. Anyone got any thoughts on this?

As I said before, I think this is a great idea. Perhaps you could say as part of the Choosing a Warband rules that an Elite may choose to give up his 2 advancements* in exchange for becoming a Specialist#, choosing one of the following:

Tech-adept: Servo-arm/Mechatendrites and maybe a skill (Armourer/Weaponsmith or something?)

Psyker: May purchase Wyrd levels and roll for Major/Minor powers as per the currently suggested rules for psychic abilities. (Or gets Level 1 free and may purchase higher levels?)

Priest: Spitballing a little here, but maybe a Ld boost and/or anti-psychic buff of some kind?

Officer/Commissar/Bully: Again a Ld boost and some kind of anti-pinning/break test aura?


Perhaps say no more than one of each type of Specialist in a warband?



*because of his focus on a particular skill set, he wouldn't have had the opportunity to gain combat experience or other, more esoteric abilities

#probably a bad/confusing name for it but I couldn't think of another!

 

[Tiny]

Perhaps say no more than one of each type of Specialist in a warband?

This makes sense and would be a great rule to break for certain warbands (e.g. Cult warbands ignore the limit on preacher specialists).

I will finish doing the Underworld warband first and then look to move all of the special skills out of the warbands and into a separate section.

 

[Nihidealist]

I have a few random questions, suggestions and comments about the current warband rules for you:

1. Why are leaders/elites being denied the options of W, A, I or Ld advancements? +1 W and S or A makes a pretty satisfying ork nob, for exampleThe increase in choice range here would add a lot and cost only a little, I suspect. This, one time, might even be a nice way to offer a +1 M option.

2. I'd like to suggest that elites only start with 40+d6 xp, since they don't get access to special or heavy weapons. Otherwise, in the long game, they will be a little weaker than characters with the same rating (since xp + cost).

3. Why are rogue traders forbidden from having xenos, but not abhuman, elites? Nobles can, as can pirates and t'au, so it just feels strange.

4. Although it's (seemingly?) small, cult leaders gaining the preacher ability "in addition" means that, strictly speaking, cult leaders are stronger than any other type of leader. I don't suspect you intended every cult leader to feel like better commanders than inquisitors, grizzled guard sergeants, etc.

5. I'm not sure I (personally) like the idea of rolling for a mutation, although I really like the way it's presented (as a 2 or 12 advance and an option therefor). Offering it as a free choice of mutation might be required for many players though, since otherwise it requires a commitment to remodeling the actual miniature in a way you might not want.

6. Genestealer cults might benefit from a modifier to their "redeem/recruitment roll", since they aren't required to convince anyone of anything... perhaps it could be a toughness test or die, instead? Maybe throw in a serious injury to add a little seasoning, though they're already quite appealing.

7. Does the noble house' "swagger" ability really need to cost that 10 gelt for each declared noble? The rule right before it is trying to establish that such warbands are better equipped by providing 10% extra starting money, while this provides the opposite effect. Also, since the buggers demand a double cut of the income, they've already got a perfect (fluff-wise), if a bit brutal, counter-balance already in place. Actually, it really is perfect, as in the long run it slows down the income growth of such gangs such that they don't change gear as much as others. Might be better to increase their starting income all the way to +20%, but require at least half the warband be "nobles".

8. T'au diplomatic cadres are actually much more likely to be led by a water caste than an ethereal, according to my "research". There aren't many ethereals and water castes are specifically given the duty of diplomacy. Also, love the cult style conversion rule! Probably going to be my first I'munda warband.

9. Heresy table: I see six (-1)s, five of which are for hiring choices (within your control) and one of which, "fought a puritan warband" is not a choice, in most gaming groups (or story scenarios). Wouldn't be relevant, except for that "(+1) for never having suffered one of the penalties above" thing. I think this creates an effect you did not intend, is that correct?

10. The more I look through it, the more I see the need to separate skill tables from warbands, at least if they're going to remain clumped together for efficiency as they are now. There are many cases of things like, "why do squat leaders and elites get agility but not ferocity", "why do all lists that allow T'au warbands grant universal access to the close combat skill group", and "eldar guardians get the muscle skill table?". I have a suggestion for an alternate skill table assignment system that I'll propose soon, where appropriate, but only once it's a little more settled (it's looking really good, but I've only seen it from one of my own perspectives so far).

11. Also, as a general design idea, I wouldn't mind seeing more use of a consistently themed rule for "slave" style initiates. They should cost a flat rate per game and not get a cut of income, for example (maybe cost more than just food, since they have to be watched and contained, say five or maybe take ten or more, but out of income, instead of stash, etc), but they could also benefit from a chance to run off the board and escape to freedom sometimes.

12. All in all, this has been the result of a fairly thorough and critical analysis of your work so far, which has been excellent, by the way. I hope that some of my observations prove valuable. Oh, one last question, what program did you make it in, it looks really pro?

 

[spafe]

wow, @Nihidealist , that's some great feedback for @Tiny ! I'm sure he might have some other answers, but I'll answer my thoughts on a couple if you dont mind too.

Why are leaders/elites being denied the options of W, A, I or Ld advancements

I assume this is a balance thing, rather than anyhting else. Tiny might know straight away, I do remember there being a discussion about this... but I couldn't honestly tell you where, and remember why these were picked.

Genestealer cults might benefit from a modifier to their "redeem/recruitment roll", since they aren't required to convince anyone of anything... perhaps it could be a toughness test or die, instead

I suspect this is more just balance as it allows for a more standardised mechanic. Also I'm sure there would be occaions where a particularly strong willed indivual might expire in their resisting the implant (or manage to take their own life beforehand knowing whats coming). While I wouldnt be against a T test type thing... I am not sure if the potential balance problems creeping in compared to the known mechanic (would there be a reason orks/ogyrns/whatever else is naturally going to be harder to corrupt than a eldar? there might be but I could see arguements both ways)

T'au diplomatic cadres are actually much more likely to be led by a water caste than an ethereal

Agreed, although I think I might see a potential 'mentor' type for tau in an actual etheral at a later point maybe.

There are many cases of things like, "why do squat leaders and elites get agility but not ferocity"

This is partly going to be covered in the species I suspect, as things like certain species have 'always access to X table' and 'never access to Y table'. So it might be a case of making sure they make sense (Squats never having agilty for example seems to make sense).

They are just soem intial reactions to your points, which are all good ones for consideration

 

[Nihidealist]

Thanks! I've been in need of a project like for a while.

I can see the point about the genestealer cult conversion, quite prudent really... perhaps with some extensive play-testing and/or serious math-hammering. Hopefully we can find a simple mechanical swap that changes the "feel" without changing the odds (too much).

LOVE the idea of ethereals moving into the mentor position with 'stealers and astartes. They feel right there, maybe allow them some full epic social power to reflect this status.

However, I really dislike the idea of lumping "extra" skill cats onto a few xenos, but not humans, abhumans and the rest of the xenos. The banning of skill cats is just as bad, and is almost certainly going to add to the subtle imbalances that degrade the gameplay.

 

[spafe]

onto a few xenos, but not humans, abhumans and the rest of the xenos.

I'm not sure I fully follow. If for instance an ogyrn is never going to be smart enough to gain techno access, but always big and scary enough to have muscle access... this is tied to being an ogyrn, doesnt matter if he is a elite on a pirate crew, a enforcer for an inquistor, or some other roll, they just arnt smart enough to have techno skills. To me that jsut shows that while you can ask a ill suited member to fufil a certain roll, they wont actually be that good at it (rather than having super smart ogryns or whatever running about because they are wearing their 'heavy' hat, even though in the guard the smartest ones get brain surgury to allow them to follow basic orders and pass them onto others).

You may well be very correct, it upsets balance, and thats something we'll have to look at once we have a better full list or warbands, but I dont think the concept of some skill tables being tied into species is neccesairly a bad one, its just possible we dont have the balance of it quite right yet. But I'm happy to be wrong on this, this is just my gut feeling that it 'should work' but never know, it may not pan out

 

[Nihidealist]

In your example, that ogryn is next to never going to be chosen for any role where he is actually denied access to techno skills. He will however, be carefully positioned if possible to place him somewhere where he can gain the additional access to muscle. Skill categories are one of the most mild imbalances though really, since it's an imbalance of choice access, not an attribute or actual skill imbalance. I think the easiest answer is actually just to give everyone access a skill category for their species (ferocity for human and ork, agility for eldar, techno for squat, etc) and one or more additional skill cats for their profession, position and/or faction.

Your gut's probably right, as it will likely find itself addressed naturally in time.

 

[Genghis]

Thanks for the welcomes over on the main V3 thread. I've given @Tiny 's rather excellent Warband Creation rules a good read and overall really like them. I do have some comments though:

• Should AdMech have access to Galvanic Rifles & Radium Carbines?
  
• On the subject of weapons, I recall seeing something somewhere referencing an LMG version of the Autogun (Autostubber?) being a thing. If so, should it be added to the Common Weapons list, or are the weapon lists still WIP pending separate work on the weapons?
  
• The Cult Redeem rule seems too easy to pass (in most cases better than evens given the Leader’s typical +2 LD advantage). Also, maybe include something along the lines that radical/puritan cults cannot redeem each other (possibly except initiates who may not yet be fully steeped in their cult).
  
• Eldar "Raiders": I'm not so sure Craftworld Outcasts get involved with slaving? (Happy to be corrected on this if I've just missed the fluff somewhere along the line.
  
• Military Assets: Several comments:
  
  • Could there be an option for abhuman warbands led by an abhuman (probably only really Squats, and maybe Ratlings – I can’t see an Ogryn being a leader)?
    
  • Could there be some sort of 'Vanilla' option so a warband is not forced to take a specialisation?
    
  • Could there be a Veteran mercs option - maybe allow a 3rd Elite slot and have a max of 25% Initiates? This could also work with a Squat leader option.
• Seeing the Squat Hearthguard Bodyguard skill, is that going to be a more widely available skill available through the skill table upgrades? (I was initially thinking of Ogryns here, but I’m sure there are others willing to take a bullet for the boss.)
• Random thought, are there plans for mounts/cavalry and dogs (or xenos equivalent war animals) of some sort?

Finally, and this is possibly something that’s moving a bit away from the combat focus of Inquisimunda into more RPGy territory, but has any thought been given to less/non-combat oriented leaders? Maybe via the mechanism of an option entitled something like “Thinker, not a Fighter” that reduces the leader’s stats for a TG rebate? My reason for wondering about this is the last batch of figures I painted were some Hasslefree Grymn (I’ll probably treat them as Squats), the leader (either a trader or underworld boss) is in a suit and completely unarmed. (Photo at the foot of this page for those interested http://www.lead-adventure.de/index.php?topic=91726.15.) Including him as a leader at the moment would waste a lot of TG on combat-focused stats that he won’t really use (and don’t fit my concept for him).

This line of thinking leads me to further wonder about including rules for non-combat RGPy traits, perhaps brought from a separate pool of ‘RPG trait points’ (needs a snappier title). These could be incorporated into GM-led campaigns and scenarios. Off the top of my head maybe things like “Tech Specialist”, “Pilot”, “Smooth Talker”, “Underworld Connections” "Ladies' Man/Femme Fatale" and “Old Boys Network”. Of no use in straight up combat, but add to the options for a GM to build scenarios around. I think I’m now really straying away from core Inquisimunda, and this is maybe something to put to one side, at least until the core mechanics of V3 are squared away, but I’d be interested whether anyone else sees any mileage in this sort of thing.

 

[Nihidealist]

Thanks for the welcomes over on the main V3 thread. I've given @Tiny 's rather excellent Warband Creation rules a good read and overall really like them. I do have some comments though:

• Should AdMech have access to Galvanic Rifles & Radium Carbines?
  
• On the subject of weapons, I recall seeing something somewhere referencing an LMG version of the Autogun (Autostubber?) being a thing. If so, should it be added to the Common Weapons list, or are the weapon lists still WIP pending separate work on the weapons?
  
• The Cult Redeem rule seems too easy to pass (in most cases better than evens given the Leader’s typical +2 LD advantage). Also, maybe include something along the lines that radical/puritan cults cannot redeem each other (possibly except initiates who may not yet be fully steeped in their cult).
  
• Eldar "Raiders": I'm not so sure Craftworld Outcasts get involved with slaving? (Happy to be corrected on this if I've just missed the fluff somewhere along the line.
  
• Military Assets: Several comments:
  • Could there be an option for abhuman warbands led by an abhuman (probably only really Squats, and maybe Ratlings – I can’t see an Ogryn being a leader)?
    
  • Could there be some sort of 'Vanilla' option so a warband is not forced to take a specialisation?
    
  • Could there be a Veteran mercs option - maybe allow a 3rd Elite slot and have a max of 25% Initiates? This could also work with a Squat leader option.
• Seeing the Squat Hearthguard Bodyguard skill, is that going to be a more widely available skill available through the skill table upgrades? (I was initially thinking of Ogryns here, but I’m sure there are others willing to take a bullet for the boss.)
• Random thought, are there plans for mounts/cavalry and dogs (or xenos equivalent war animals) of some sort?

Finally, and this is possibly something that’s moving a bit away from the combat focus of Inquisimunda into more RPGy territory, but has any thought been given to less/non-combat oriented leaders? Maybe via the mechanism of an option entitled something like “Thinker, not a Fighter” that reduces the leader’s stats for a TG rebate? My reason for wondering about this is the last batch of figures I painted were some Hasslefree Grymn (I’ll probably treat them as Squats), the leader (either a trader or underworld boss) is in a suit and completely unarmed. (Photo at the foot of this page for those interested http://www.lead-adventure.de/index.php?topic=91726.15.) Including him as a leader at the moment would waste a lot of TG on combat-focused stats that he won’t really use (and don’t fit my concept for him).

This line of thinking leads me to further wonder about including rules for non-combat RGPy traits, perhaps brought from a separate pool of ‘RPG trait points’ (needs a snappier title). These could be incorporated into GM-led campaigns and scenarios. Off the top of my head maybe things like “Tech Specialist”, “Pilot”, “Smooth Talker”, “Underworld Connections” "Ladies' Man/Femme Fatale" and “Old Boys Network”. Of no use in straight up combat, but add to the options for a GM to build scenarios around. I think I’m now really straying away from core Inquisimunda, and this is maybe something to put to one side, at least until the core mechanics of V3 are squared away, but I’d be interested whether anyone else sees any mileage in this sort of thing.

Weapons lists are all still entirely WIP, to my understanding. There has been a fairly universal addition of the... "autoslugger" i believe it was called. Haven't tried it in play, but love the idea in theory.

I must disagree with the cult roll being too easy, after all, by this point there has already been an out of action injury leading to a capture (or shenanigans), a failed rescue attempt and a refusal to pay ransom, so the cult roll is really just instead of selling the captured model to the guilders or sending it to the mines or whatever. It's more of a flavour option than anything, not as powerful as it seems (that I've seen, at lest).

I'm not sure about them, but I suspect that Eldar corsairs are just as bad as any other pirates, though I can't think of a specific example of slavery to cite.

I really like the idea of idea of a neutral ("mercenary"?) military option, maybe with a puritan (single species) and radical (any species) distinction/option. Might even remove the need for a few lists if we work out a complimentary market system.

I agree with the need for more body guards. It seems weird that only squats would have access to such a rule. Grots and ogryns both seem much more applicable candidates to me.

Need for dogs (plus equivalents) seconded! I like the idea of treating them like wargear, while adding the option of a "trainer" skill or something (maybe only available on a "2" or "12" advance) that lets you upgrade your pack of warbeasts somehow.

Finally, I really love that last idea. The idea of including semi-non-combat support characters is great. Could be forced into some defensive scenarios, where their suck at combat could really shine! If we establish them as being ineligible to take in most battles, a few could even be super deadly (like enginseers, for example).

 

[spafe]

One thing I'd like to mention on the non combat skills section, there was some work on adding plots and schemes (ala malifaux but to a much much lesser extent), that allow for warbands to do more than just hit each other with sticks. I think (along with hte more in depth weapons lists) they are on hold as there was an agreement that rather than every part progresing and going differnt ways, we'd sort species (pretty much locked in now bar slight tweaks), then warbands (which you've seen tiny's awesome work through), then we'll look to kick off plots/scenarios, weapons lists, skill tweaks, etc etc. After that, there is a lot of interest in mentors and other additions

 

[Tiny]

Thanks for all the feedback folks. Not had chance to read all of the comments yet but will do once I get a minute.

Just a quickie to remind folks to ignore weapons lists and skill tables for now as all are completely unfinished or in some cases just copy/pasted from other lists.

 

[0604854]

One small suggestion, can we have young/baby genestealer hybrids for the genestealer cult:

 

[Blood Donor]

I reckon that is a good idea. I am all for having the available model range help in ways to shape rules. To a certain degree. Like, I know Terminators and Centurian models are readily available, but crushing the game balance isn't much fun. Stuff like familiars and squishables can be added fun

 

[Crazy Aido]

I like the investigation and plots mechanic, maybe there are some characters or skills that can be given so you have a reason to include a low ranking scribe. He's god awful in a fight but does he ever know how to speed read...

 

[0604854]

I like the investigation and plots mechanic, maybe there are some characters or skills that can be given so you have a reason to include a low ranking scribe. He's god awful in a fight but does he ever know how to speed read...

This suggestion I second, some inquisitorial henchmen are garbage in a fight but have other skills that help the Inquisitor instead.

 

[Crazy Aido]

This suggestion I second, some inquisitorial henchmen are garbage in a fight but have other skills that help the Inquisitor instead.

Something along the lines of improving investigation rating or subversion. Maybe also providing a bonus to detection of hidden miniatures, infiltrate, stuff like that. But that would require new skills and/or tech. MY preference would be for tech so you can buy it for lowly scrubs from the start.

 

[0604854]

For an Eldar (cabalite) genestealer cult would Sslyth count as a related species (Tau can pick Vesprid/Kroot)?

 

[0604854]

Also I am assuming that certain warbands will be able to take more of one of the same mutation (e.g. genestealer cults with extra arms)