I think it's a mistake not to include leader inall of the characters. The small formations will really need it!

Utility: Walker
Defensive: inv save
Offensive: Inspiring

Try to keep it simple and within existing options.

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam

Lets keep it simple, no special command tanks we need to stat out, one character per formation, choose one type of character for the whole army.



How useful would this be when most of the core units already have longer ranged MW shots as part of their base stats? I think I may be leaning toward giving the unit extra FF attacks. Even with a 5+ FF adding either +1 MW EA or +2 regular ones would be useful. Chalk it up to all manner of smaller weapons integrated with the vehicle.


I can't get behind this one, I don't think VS can go on anything smaller than a superheavy tank due to either size or power requirements and I think it adds a lot of book keeping that's unnecessary. Not even Knight titans have VS on them IIRC. I'd rather the TRA and simply leader for defensive over VS for the character.



This does seem interesting to explore at least. Tanks want to stay out of assaults but at the same time, most of them have at least 60cm weapons on them so how much benefit is gained from the ability?



You assume correctly, I was trying to concisely word it so people didn't get the impression you have an entire formation of sniper tanks.



Leader is being used as a differentiating factor. Do I trade leader for sniper and whatever else and gain more offensive punch or do I keep leader and trade the inv save for Thick Rear Armor or, perhaps, I think walker will be more useful than either of those. I'm hoping it gives real drawbacks and benefits to selecting the character type by causing a greater shift in play style than if Leader was just standard for everything.

_________________
-Vaaish

So, what in my suggestion above do uou disagree with?

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam

including leader on all of the formations mostly. The rest I think we are all pretty close on though I'd advocate a bit more to things than just what you have up there, especially when using the Commissar or other characters as examples. I think Thick rear armor is more useful for defensive too since they are more likely to be flanked and in a crossfire position while INV is better for general and utility.

Base: Leader and Invulnerable

Offense: Character unit games Sniper and Inspiring and formation gains something, perhaps extra attacks or something akin to the Eldar rules.

Defensive: Leader and Thick Rear Armor

Utility: Walker and Invulnerable

_________________
-Vaaish

Okay. but don't you think that most people would choose Base CH over Defensive? inv seems like a way better option than TRA. They are pretty similar also which isn'tgreat.

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam

Could we be clearer on two questions

1. Can we add multiple characters to a single formation for a cost (suggest 25 points per character initially)?
2. Are the abilities to be conferred to the entire formation (TRA) or merely to the unit with the character (Sniper)?

I'd suggest

1. NO (rules interactions are a bugger to cost, since the benefit dosen't scale linearly)
2. Varies. Inv Save on a single tank (knight sheild), TRA for the entire formation (Offico Reductor)

_________________
My shifting projects

I think it depends on what they are planning to do. TRA is much more effective if you plan on garrisoning units in cover or having your force mostly stationary since it prevents the -1 to your save when your opponent uses crossfire.



MadDoctor is right, only one character to a formation and the abilities depend on the character. Usually there is one that applies to the entire formation like Invulnerable Save, Walker, etc.

_________________
-Vaaish

Just a slight update to the first post to start getting some of what we've talked about in a more "finished" form. Here's a copy. In thinking it through I don't believe we need the Utility option. It's pretty close to the base rule so I packaged the walker function into there.

I've opted for the extra attacks (15cm) route for the agressive posture. I think this is easier to work with and adds a bit of an interesting flair. It's at +2 right now because of the FF value of most of the units that would have it so it averages to about 1 hit per tank in FF.

For defensive, I had a thought to allow the formation to garrison. This helps reinforce the idea of defense and combined with TRA I think gives the impression of units hunkered down. I'm open to thoughts on this though since the implication is that WE could garrison if assigned the character.

Blessings of the Omnissiah
The Adeptus Mechanicus assigns tech priests to safeguard and augment the machine spirit of their armored vehicles in the field. At the start of each game you are granted one tech priest per 500 points which may be assigned to any Cataphractii AV or WE formation. Allied formations may not be assigned tech priests. Select one option from the list below.

Hymn of Reforging: Free
The unit the Tech Priest is assigned gains the Leader rule and all units in this formation gain Walker and Invulnerable Save.

Augmented Targeting Cogitators: 150 points
The unit the Tech Priest is assigned gains Inspiring and Sniper. All units in this formation gain +2 Extra Attacks (15cm).

Aegis Mechanicum: 75 points
The unit the Tech Priest is assigned gains the Leader rule and all units in this formation gain Thick Rear Armor and may garrison at the start of the game.

_________________
-Vaaish

Hmm... Sorry mate, i don't like is at all. I thought we where talking about a cheaper character with 1or 2 basic abilities. this is something different. Noone else advocated this i think.

1. I think the characters cost to much.
2. I think the abilities they bring are way to much.

Why does the CH need to be so different than other lists Characters?

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam

Walker for tanks would be very powerful and I'm not sure it's that appropriate. Should tanks as large as Valdors be able to move trough woods so easily?

I'd prefer keeping just it simple and having a free character for the core formations that has leader and an invulnerable save (for the character unit only) and no other options.

Well, thats a little to restrictive for me, but it still a better idea than the one that Vaaish presented above.

Maybe just to options leader/walker (utility) or leader/Inv save (defensive).

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam

Maybe we haven't been clear though this, but the cost there isn't for EACH character it's for ALL of them. You get one Character per 500 points, so 6 for a 3k list.

All of the characters need to be of the same type so the cost is to upgrade all of them, not just one. If you break it down, you are paying 25 points per character to upgrade to the Augmented Targeting Cogitators, not 150 points per character.

I had wanted to keep the characters uniform so that the playstyle would shift based on what was selected. Were you expecting 25 to 50 point characters that you could mix and match? If so, we've been on different pages in this discussion for quite some time.



Walker is very situational. If you aren't going through something that's dangerous terrain, it's of no use. Even when you ARE going through dangerous terrain, it only comes into play if you roll a 1. On top of that every unit in the game has access to a form of walker at will if they reduce their movement speed.

However, I'm all that attached to it so if people think it's too much, we can drop it.

_________________
-Vaaish

Hmm... So one type of character for the whole army then? I guess that works.

No, walker is not to much. I agree that it depends on the situation.

I still think the abilities you are proposing are way OTT. iThink my suggestion is better and more of a middle ground between you and Ginger.

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam

Correct, one type of character for the whole army.

At this point, I disagree that the abilities are too much. Look at Guard. Commissars provide Inspiring and Leader and Fearless for their unit. That's quite a lot.

I'm not entirely sure where you are getting OTT since most of these are quite similar if not the same outside of leader for all as what you posted a page ago:



General: leader, walker and inv (drop inv and it's the same as your general option)

Offensive: Character gains Sniper and Inspiring, formation +EA (toned down from sniper for all and adds other items)

Defensive: Leader, TRA, Garrison (same base as your suggestion but garrison instead of INV)

_________________
-Vaaish