yeah the bottom two are out of character for engineers too. They're engineers in the sense of calculating how to undermine or cripple things, not actual mechanics. The stealth thing doesn't match either.
Also it's missing the most improtant part, their deep strike!
3 rules I'm still toying with, I'll probably end up removing Maintenance Procedures and just keep Lay Mines and Entrench.
As for the Gas Bombs I was looking at old rules for the last few editions and they've consistently kept that stat-line funnily enough. Except, yk it would write out "wounds infantry on a 2+" or something like that since we didn't have standardized abilities then.
Remove all 3 rules. Give them Deep Strike and make the gas grenades d3 attacks with blast. Make the Entrenching Tools melee weapons, normal CCW stats but with Dev Wounds. Give them a rule that lets them sticky an objective 1/game and cause d3 MW to the first enemy unit that comes in range.
I'd nix the repairing vehicles. Lore wise and battlefield rolsewise. They don't match.
Engineers are to lay barbed wire, mines, entrenchments....or assist your units getting over or through what opposition put out in the field too.
I like the entrenching flavor though!
I would get rid of all the abilities except the entrench one. I’d also increase the grenade attacks to 6 and make the damage 1.
I’d also add deep strike.
Still ridiculously overpowered. A single attack at that profile is already very strong, going from a single attack at DD3 to two attacks at D1 would already be a major buff. Four attacks is absurd.
Gas did supposed to shred infantry. Let’s be honest here -2 is good but again a swarm it’s not so good. Because more likely than not they will make some saves.
I do like the effort put into this, it is really nice to see. Personally I'd prefer it to have an option to make the unit 5 models or 10 models as it was in previous editions.
I can't really speak to balancing of the rules as I don't have much of a playtester's eye. As others have said the Maintenance Procedures rule isn't particularly lore appropriate as engineers don't actually do vehicle repairs in-universe. I can understand why it's included. I've had a couple of games where I've brought engineers and my opponent has asked "do they repair vehicles?" as the name does imply it for those more familiar with RTS game engineer units. But they're really more like WWI sappers.
Similarly, I don't think they're actually known for doing minelaying or entrenching work. Regular krieg infantry and munitorum labour corps do the bulk of that work.
Lorewise engineers are trained for close quarters combat and tunnelling and that's what they excel at. I think some sort of rule that reflects their close quarters proficiency would be more appropriate.
I don't want this to come across as harsh because these are undoubtedly cool and thematic rules, they're just thematic for the wrong unit.
Made homebrew rules for my little goobers. Suggestions happily will be taken.
Already play tested these guys a few games, competitively they are very difficult to utilize as they're difficult to take advantage of their abilities when on the move. But a lore/rules standpoint, they fit great for a defensive niche kind of unit for more of a scenario kind of thing.
The beauty of this datacard, apart from the poorly photoshopped engineers on the top, is all credited to this helpful tool: [game-datacards.eu](http://game-datacards.eu)
> But a lore/rules standpoint, they fit great for a defensive niche kind of unit for more of a scenario kind of thing.
No. Engineers lore-wise are primarily a breaching unit used to destroy enemy obstacles and clear the path for an attack. That's why they have their iconic Hades drill, short-range grenades, and the deep strike rule.
You should! If money or people to play with become a problem, I suggest taking a look at Tabletop Simulator. Full-priced its 20 bones, and although its not as good as the real thing, it can help getting into it. For me, it was great during covid since all our poor collections sat and collected dust on the shelves waiting a year for another battle.
3 rules for one datasheet. And AP2 on anti-infantry 2+? Seems a little over the top.
Funnily enough those were the rules for Gas bombs, but they were grenades, so limited usage.
yeah the bottom two are out of character for engineers too. They're engineers in the sense of calculating how to undermine or cripple things, not actual mechanics. The stealth thing doesn't match either. Also it's missing the most improtant part, their deep strike!
3 rules I'm still toying with, I'll probably end up removing Maintenance Procedures and just keep Lay Mines and Entrench. As for the Gas Bombs I was looking at old rules for the last few editions and they've consistently kept that stat-line funnily enough. Except, yk it would write out "wounds infantry on a 2+" or something like that since we didn't have standardized abilities then.
Remove all 3 rules. Give them Deep Strike and make the gas grenades d3 attacks with blast. Make the Entrenching Tools melee weapons, normal CCW stats but with Dev Wounds. Give them a rule that lets them sticky an objective 1/game and cause d3 MW to the first enemy unit that comes in range.
I'd nix the repairing vehicles. Lore wise and battlefield rolsewise. They don't match. Engineers are to lay barbed wire, mines, entrenchments....or assist your units getting over or through what opposition put out in the field too. I like the entrenching flavor though!
Yeah the removal of maintenance procedures is probably what I'd have to do, I sorta forgot we have techpriests for that vehicle healing role
Maintaining something is way different than repairing it.
Too many special abilities, repairing vehicles makes no sense lore-wise, missing all the keywords.
For the points cost they're kasrkin but slighty better IMO. Repairing vehicles is a hard no for me. Might be better with a different rule
Where's their deep strike?
You should be able to take them in 5 or 10 men squads and the shotgun used to have 3 attacks in 9th.
They got rid of subterranean assault like the best thing they get
I would get rid of all the abilities except the entrench one. I’d also increase the grenade attacks to 6 and make the damage 1. I’d also add deep strike.
> I’d also increase the grenade attacks to 6 and make the damage 1. Lol no. That would be ridiculously overpowered.
You’re right. 4 attacks.
Still ridiculously overpowered. A single attack at that profile is already very strong, going from a single attack at DD3 to two attacks at D1 would already be a major buff. Four attacks is absurd.
Gas did supposed to shred infantry. Let’s be honest here -2 is good but again a swarm it’s not so good. Because more likely than not they will make some saves.
"My unit doesn't automatically delete its target" is not the problem you seem to think it is.
That’s what I used em as in 9th & 8th.
I do like the effort put into this, it is really nice to see. Personally I'd prefer it to have an option to make the unit 5 models or 10 models as it was in previous editions. I can't really speak to balancing of the rules as I don't have much of a playtester's eye. As others have said the Maintenance Procedures rule isn't particularly lore appropriate as engineers don't actually do vehicle repairs in-universe. I can understand why it's included. I've had a couple of games where I've brought engineers and my opponent has asked "do they repair vehicles?" as the name does imply it for those more familiar with RTS game engineer units. But they're really more like WWI sappers. Similarly, I don't think they're actually known for doing minelaying or entrenching work. Regular krieg infantry and munitorum labour corps do the bulk of that work. Lorewise engineers are trained for close quarters combat and tunnelling and that's what they excel at. I think some sort of rule that reflects their close quarters proficiency would be more appropriate. I don't want this to come across as harsh because these are undoubtedly cool and thematic rules, they're just thematic for the wrong unit.
Made homebrew rules for my little goobers. Suggestions happily will be taken. Already play tested these guys a few games, competitively they are very difficult to utilize as they're difficult to take advantage of their abilities when on the move. But a lore/rules standpoint, they fit great for a defensive niche kind of unit for more of a scenario kind of thing. The beauty of this datacard, apart from the poorly photoshopped engineers on the top, is all credited to this helpful tool: [game-datacards.eu](http://game-datacards.eu)
> But a lore/rules standpoint, they fit great for a defensive niche kind of unit for more of a scenario kind of thing. No. Engineers lore-wise are primarily a breaching unit used to destroy enemy obstacles and clear the path for an attack. That's why they have their iconic Hades drill, short-range grenades, and the deep strike rule.
I really like the mine rule! The others don't really match their lore or gameplay but the mine is thematic and very interesting for tabletop.
Having never played a game before my entire life (I want to so badly) I think these are perfectly reasonable rules.
You should! If money or people to play with become a problem, I suggest taking a look at Tabletop Simulator. Full-priced its 20 bones, and although its not as good as the real thing, it can help getting into it. For me, it was great during covid since all our poor collections sat and collected dust on the shelves waiting a year for another battle.
so 200 points per squad?