V3.0 Warband Creation Update
- Thread starter Tiny
- Start date
well, if we assume that, apart from fluff, a radical warband is just a puritan one with bonus, it's ok.
I like a nice fluffy distinction between puritan and radical and middle ground.
BUT:
- what qualifies as puritan, when is that one joe to much.
- Does your whole warband change, does that mean you get to use a different ruleset for your cult? What happens to illegal choices.
- I would hardly call an eldar farseer conclaive radical, they are as much sticklers for rules as any puritan, and might not act much like radicals.
- Can a radical warband get puritan status again?
BUT:
- what qualifies as puritan, when is that one joe to much.
- Does your whole warband change, does that mean you get to use a different ruleset for your cult? What happens to illegal choices.
- I would hardly call an eldar farseer conclaive radical, they are as much sticklers for rules as any puritan, and might not act much like radicals.
- Can a radical warband get puritan status again?
let remember that, in real life, when a good guy becomes a bad guy, he doesn't put on a sign saying "just breaking bad", so I think it can gain a malus when reported to the watchmen but not to gain suddenly a bounty or similar.
after all, publicly, he continues to pretend to be among the good guys.
after all, publicly, he continues to pretend to be among the good guys.
Don't panic. I'll sort it out using the existing Outlaw rules.
Lets end the discussion here as its getting a bit too hypothetical for now. I have some great ideas to work from and will continue with warbands based on this use of Radical / Puritan.
Lets end the discussion here as its getting a bit too hypothetical for now. I have some great ideas to work from and will continue with warbands based on this use of Radical / Puritan.
Easily done by making genestealer (& maybe chaos) cults normal (non radical) to start and then using modifiers on the Outlaw chart after each game.
Much the same, guy rolls on outlaw chart. If he has done something wrong, he gets a modifier to his roll.
spafe
Executive Officer in charge of Hats
Staff member
Necromunda Custodian
Yak Comp 2nd Place
Tribe Council
Good call @Tiny (was halfway through a message myself to similar vein).
Okay, I'll leave this open for the time being... probably until tomorrow afternoon (unless anyone wants it otherwise). That seems to then have a lot of comments and thoughts for Tiny to work on that draft a bit more with. Then next week We'll either re-open this or have another round.
Any objections to this plan? (I know this ahs been a short time frame, but a lot has gone on here, and I think capturing this is a good idea before it gets lost in too much talk and becomes overwhelming)
Okay, I'll leave this open for the time being... probably until tomorrow afternoon (unless anyone wants it otherwise). That seems to then have a lot of comments and thoughts for Tiny to work on that draft a bit more with. Then next week We'll either re-open this or have another round.
Any objections to this plan? (I know this ahs been a short time frame, but a lot has gone on here, and I think capturing this is a good idea before it gets lost in too much talk and becomes overwhelming)
Last edited:
Will take a look at the proposal shortly and post comments when work slows down a bit -- probably just by editing this post unless the convo moves on significantly. Exciting!
EDIT 1: As far as the base system (p. 1-4) is concerned, A++ effort, man! Exactly what I hoped for, and quite well-written and clean from an editing standpoint. My only quibble would be on heavies: I think they should retain access to special weapons, for backwards compatibility and so as to not disadvantage fast-moving gangs. I realize Elites could choose Specialist, but then a warband that doesn't want any move-or-fire weapons is essentially "wasting" its heavy slots.
EDIT 2: Equipment obviously in flux, so I won't comment much. But I wonder whether a common equipment list bolstered by warband-specific HWLs is going to be that useful ... for completeness (and to avoid arguments about Eldar with stub guns), a discrete equipment list for each warband might be the way to go.
AdMech: Like the direction here. Especially like the Special Rules options for Praetorians and More Machine than Man -- good use of existing mutations mechanic for that. It looks like you're hinting at doing Servitors and Gholams as species? Could be a good way to handle it ("Servitor" could actually be an upgrade like "Mutant," so it can be applied to various races). I do think Puritan should be spelled out as a discrete option (ie., choose Puritan or Radical) and am interested in the idea discussed above of making Radical = Outlaw for territory/contact purposes.
EDIT 3: I was initially skeptical about combining all of the various cults into one list, but I'm tentatively convinced after an initial skim. Ecclesiarchy and Imperial Cults might need a little something more to account for all the restrictions.
Have a busy work day ahead, so further comments will likely have to wait until this evening.
EDIT 1: As far as the base system (p. 1-4) is concerned, A++ effort, man! Exactly what I hoped for, and quite well-written and clean from an editing standpoint. My only quibble would be on heavies: I think they should retain access to special weapons, for backwards compatibility and so as to not disadvantage fast-moving gangs. I realize Elites could choose Specialist, but then a warband that doesn't want any move-or-fire weapons is essentially "wasting" its heavy slots.
EDIT 2: Equipment obviously in flux, so I won't comment much. But I wonder whether a common equipment list bolstered by warband-specific HWLs is going to be that useful ... for completeness (and to avoid arguments about Eldar with stub guns), a discrete equipment list for each warband might be the way to go.
AdMech: Like the direction here. Especially like the Special Rules options for Praetorians and More Machine than Man -- good use of existing mutations mechanic for that. It looks like you're hinting at doing Servitors and Gholams as species? Could be a good way to handle it ("Servitor" could actually be an upgrade like "Mutant," so it can be applied to various races). I do think Puritan should be spelled out as a discrete option (ie., choose Puritan or Radical) and am interested in the idea discussed above of making Radical = Outlaw for territory/contact purposes.
EDIT 3: I was initially skeptical about combining all of the various cults into one list, but I'm tentatively convinced after an initial skim. Ecclesiarchy and Imperial Cults might need a little something more to account for all the restrictions.
Have a busy work day ahead, so further comments will likely have to wait until this evening.
Last edited:
I think @oGRE3 is suggesting that that would be hard, as some of the benefits might be stat increases, equipment availability or access to species and skills, so they would not be revoked easily.
Might be, none of the bonus shown as examples are so far are they?
And if that would be a problem I'm sure @Tiny will write the puritan/radical bonuses not to include things such as stats or skills
Equipment ain't that bad as there is no rare trade you can get your hands on nearly anything anyway
This was a silly copy/paste typo. Already fixed for next draft.
IMO just saves re-listing all of the super common weapons time and again, increasing page count. This is something we can look into later though if adding additional rules to remove common weapons list access for Eldar / Ork warbands ends up too wordy.
I reckon Species for Servitor for sure rather than upgrade. They're that "unique" a thing that they deserve it IMO. Also they shouldn't end up different based on species. An Eldar servitor won't end up more agile just as a Jokaero servitor won't know how to climb walls or do tech stuff due to being mindless automatons following a logic programme. If you want a better one, you buy a better one (i.e. Elite vs Warrior)
Gholams are so diverse in appearance that they should be a thing on their own too and treating them like a species just seems easier. Again, any diversity in species / construct method is taken up with the various ranks. A Gholam who's super pumped may be an Elite whereas a run of the mill gross-flesh-thing would be an initiate.
I think if you start adding species and other stuff into the mix it just gets super complex for no real gain.
What I'm thinking is rather than specific bonuses for being "Radical", it will simply be used in place of the word "Outlaw" from OCE and make any associated rules separate from the tag.
Okay, had a couple of free minutes and got to thinking about this. What about adding this language to the Additional Advances section on Leaders and Elites:
Additional Advances: Choose any two from: +1 WS, +1 BS, +1 S, +1 T or any skill from a normal skill table allowed by your warband list. An advance may not be selected if it would increase the associated characteristic higher than 4 when the fighter is recruited.
That would prevent any BS 5 Tau fire warriors or T5 Orks at warband creation, forcing them instead to pick a relevant skill or other advance.
Additional Advances: Choose any two from: +1 WS, +1 BS, +1 S, +1 T or any skill from a normal skill table allowed by your warband list. An advance may not be selected if it would increase the associated characteristic higher than 4 when the fighter is recruited.
That would prevent any BS 5 Tau fire warriors or T5 Orks at warband creation, forcing them instead to pick a relevant skill or other advance.
" tribeof1 I am unsure about the max 4 stat.
The problem with that is that orcs must then choose bs and s (since they already have ws and t 4) and then their bs must already be maxed out, and personally I think it increases the motivation to buy some higher strength weapons so leads to a better mix of weapons.
The Tau alraedy had a reduction in bs, so should not be a problem anymore. The only other race that still has bs 3 base is the ratling, so I might we inclined to suggest we should lower that as well. Especially since in the imperial guard they are noted as elites so should probably take up the elite slot if you want them as the marksmen you usually see them as.
On the other hadn, all those ws5 orcs/ ogryns at the start might be a bit of a problem.
The problem with that is that orcs must then choose bs and s (since they already have ws and t 4) and then their bs must already be maxed out, and personally I think it increases the motivation to buy some higher strength weapons so leads to a better mix of weapons.
The Tau alraedy had a reduction in bs, so should not be a problem anymore. The only other race that still has bs 3 base is the ratling, so I might we inclined to suggest we should lower that as well. Especially since in the imperial guard they are noted as elites so should probably take up the elite slot if you want them as the marksmen you usually see them as.
On the other hadn, all those ws5 orcs/ ogryns at the start might be a bit of a problem.
Last edited:
Tau Fire Warriors can't get to BS5 anyway nowadays. They start at BS1 and gain +1 from Fire Caste.
I have no problem with T5 Orks. There will be a maximum of 3 in a warband. Taking +1T means they're not taking a good skill or WS upgrade instead. By curtailing certain stats to 4 you are purposely hampering certain species from the start, especially given Ork max BS3. They can't take WS as that will be 4 already.
EDIT: Seems I posted at he same time as @Meavar .
No need to brick it over the Ratling either IMO. They won't be elites in most warbands (if any).
I have no problem with T5 Orks. There will be a maximum of 3 in a warband. Taking +1T means they're not taking a good skill or WS upgrade instead. By curtailing certain stats to 4 you are purposely hampering certain species from the start, especially given Ork max BS3. They can't take WS as that will be 4 already.
EDIT: Seems I posted at he same time as @Meavar .
No need to brick it over the Ratling either IMO. They won't be elites in most warbands (if any).
Similar threads
