zIFBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.

Learn More · Register Now
Welcome to The Daemonic Legion. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Name:   Password:


Pages: (137) « First ... 96 97 [98] 99 100 ... Last » ( Go to first unread post )

 Alternate 8th Edition DoC army book, The definitive Daemon re-write.
bonesaww666
Posted: Feb 24 2012, 08:54 AM


Plaguerider
*

Group: Members
Posts: 475
Member No.: 2,989
Joined: 15-November 11



I think 250 is a little too low, especially if we're giving him higher Ld. I know a Tyrant is 210 but he is also susceptible to Psychological Effects and doesn't have Thunder Stomp which is why I had mentioned the smaller thing, you could decrease his points considerably without him being a Large Target. But then you handicap him insane!
I would be loath to lower his points more then 275. We got what I was looking for out of him, a Lord level character asides from a BT that I can field in 2000!


--------------------
Follow The Dread Host of Berelith Fell Hand through the Blood in the Badlands Campaign!
http://z7.invisionfree.com/wyrmling_x/inde...0#entry11881810
Top
Talonz
Posted: Feb 24 2012, 12:56 PM


Greater Daemon
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1,453
Member No.: 1,456
Joined: 27-May 08



You forget a major weakness DR, that our lords *cannot* join units. Ogre characters benefit hugely from this, hiding in gutstars or other units and getting buffs with gutmagic or other lores along with the unit)

With that in mind, and the fact that the DP is *not* a large target, does 250 not seem fair now? (you dont seem to address this, are you wanting to *add* large target to the rules? Id like to know why.)

It also comes down in part to whether or not you agree that 300 for the original DP, let alone our neutered DP, is fair in the first place. You and bonesaw seem set on using that as a guideline, when I am saying its a bad guideline to begin with, and TDG agrees.
Top
bonesaww666
Posted: Feb 24 2012, 01:51 PM


Plaguerider
*

Group: Members
Posts: 475
Member No.: 2,989
Joined: 15-November 11



I am just saying that if he no longer had the Large Target rule that a point reduction would be in order (don't have my book, but I beliee he is a large targe in our book and not WoC) as Thunderstomp is quite powerful and the 18" Ld bubble is a big deal. All of these things need to be carefully considered.

Look at the Strigoi Lord he has a base cost of 260 points. Clearly inferior instability rules, a 5+ regen not ward, no stomping with a comparable stat line but fewer wounds. To get him up to 4W costs 55Points! Not too mention the heavier handed affect of his death...


--------------------
Follow The Dread Host of Berelith Fell Hand through the Blood in the Badlands Campaign!
http://z7.invisionfree.com/wyrmling_x/inde...0#entry11881810
Top
DaemonReign
Posted: Feb 24 2012, 06:14 PM


The Eternal Bloodletter
*

Group: Heralds
Posts: 3,329
Member No.: 2,658
Joined: 24-January 11



As I was saying:
The *current* DP is a Large Target.
One of many strange things is that the WoC-version is not.
I can see the basecost going down to 275pts. And that's assuming Jonathan-goddamn-C and RealVeon don't throw a fit.
I could also see lowering the Movement (to 6) and raising the Leadership (to 9).
But 250pts... man I don't know what to write *all drunk all over here I shouldn't even be posting*... It's just looking OTT to me. Without even concidering what Tyrants and VampLords cost.

I spent a conciderable time earlier today looking through the stuff on page 1. We've done a pretty damn good job over all. Let's not stare ourselves blind a single issues. The "book" we're suggesting is alot more all-round viable compared to our current one, without all the current balance problems..
Oh well.. I'll get back to this when I am at least moderately sober..


--------------------
Top
SajT
Posted: Feb 24 2012, 08:05 PM


Bloodletter
*

Group: Members
Posts: 160
Member No.: 543
Joined: 9-July 06



So many things wrong with the current Daemons list. Not just balance issues and poor wordings.

Mixing mortals, demons and beastmen needs to return. The Chaos lores need to be revised to be put in line with the new lores of magic. Monolists should be made less one-sided and be encouraged again.
Top
theDarkGeneral
Posted: Feb 24 2012, 08:18 PM


The True Chosen of Lord Khorne's Wrath and Rage!
*

Group: Heralds
Posts: 1,140
Member No.: 529
Joined: 6-June 06



While I have a moment from painting for the upcoming QCR...


First I'll comment on the Daemon Prince discussion. I believe 4 wounds is more then fine for a Daemon Prince. Large Target is a yeah, as is the reduction of Movement to 6. As already mentioned, the inability to "hide" inside a unit makes our Lord models (and always has) very susceptible to enemy Magic and Shooting, as well as charges from units that can simply grind them out.


As to my suggestive post earlier:

TheRealVeon: The plan of Daemonic Pride and True Core is to restrict the super builds. This has always been a Daemon problem, and will continue to be one unless GW simply makes all our models very over priced. (and they won't) It doesn't specifically limit a full build of Horrors and Flamers with Plaguebearers and Plagueriders, it just forces you to use a Daemon Prince or Exalted Daemon as the general, not a powerful Greater Daemon. As for the Daemonic Pride, if you've been a hated rival of another race for hundreds of thousands of years, i'm sure even in an alliance against a common foe you'd still be very cautious around them. Aren't Savage Orcs Immune to Psychology? Now from what i understand recently (what i've been privy to), units of extreme rivalry may suffer effects similar to Desperate Allies or the such, where if they're within 6" both units will suffer -1 to their LD. I'd be quite ok with this!


Talonz: In Daemonic Legions Greater Daemons and Daemon Princes were LD 10, all other Daemons were a 9, except Furies which were a 7. Part of the reason GW dropped the LD to 2 on the Furies (and got rid of Chariots) was the ability to abuse them in the previous system. I did this quite well along with a few buddies on the GT system. Though I can see them returning to a 5 or 6 next year.


und_ed: In truth I do hope Phil takes my thoughts and advice on the new Daemons Book and re-implements the True Core. From a sales point of view, nice new shiny really cool killy model "B" from the Daemons Book is out! But to field it you must run unit "A" from the same book. Not hard to imagine a return to that. Sure Dark Elves and Orcs 'n Goblins and the Empire and even Warriors of Chaos now are able to bring whatever they want. But then they don't quite have the options we do? A balance issue does not only reside within the points costs of models, but also their flexibility they grant an Army, and how many better options that Army has over another Army.


DaemonReign: Well, that's just a difference in opinion, but I firmly believe the Daemons of Chaos Book was very over powering if you let it play out without any restrictions. It was quite amazing to be at the Las Vegas '08 GT and see on Game #5, that out of the top 10 tables, Daemons were over 50% of the field. The book could've been a lot less OTT if simply True Core were in it. Would it solve a lot of the problems? Not as much, but it would've certainly helped! There's a reason that in the Tournament scene, more Daemons of Chaos Armies placed higher then most other Armies, and more so then the before dreaded and internet hated Daemonic Legions from Storm of Magic. When I received the early pdf of the Daemons Book, I was shocked...and I remember posting here and on Warseer that most players will wish that the Daemonic Legions list was back and the current Daemons book was gone.



In the end, i'll continue to play Daemons, and my Warriors and my Beasts of Chaos (hate the name change in the book). I remember when the notion of Marks disappearing from the Beastmen first came about...or the loss of Shaggoths and Dragon Ogres from their list! laugh.gif


Oh, I do have some commentary on your Daemonic Gifts, but I'll hold off until i'm done with this unit of Bloodletters!


--------------------
Lord Khorne's True Chosen One
theDarkGeneral
Touradj the Terror
Dread Praetorian of the Southern Gate
Khorne Legion Daemongorge
Top
DaemonReign
Posted: Feb 25 2012, 02:04 AM


The Eternal Bloodletter
*

Group: Heralds
Posts: 3,329
Member No.: 2,658
Joined: 24-January 11



@SajT
Welcome to the discussion, first of all.
Surpricingly few people have actually argued for the 'return' of mixed Chaos armies in this thread. I see more problems in it than solutions personally - aside of it being rather unrealistic from a strict business-perspective if you look at it from GW's angle.
Granted, creating varied MonoGod builds would be made easier if you had twice or three times the amount of units all of which could have any of the four different Marks.
I think the list as a whole though would become too unweildy. But hey I'm biased... Because personally I don't think Warriors of Chaos (and certainly not some ragtag Beastmen) have any place in my Daemon Army. I just don't want them.

As for revamping the Daemon Lores and trying to make MonoLists more dynamic we've spent conciderable effort on both these matters. The new Lores, as we have written them, are listed on page 1. When it comes to MonoLists their basic dynamic has been improved, hopefully, by the addition of a few extra units and above all focus being put to 'fix' internal balance issues (Seekers, Screamers, Beasts of Nurgle to mention a couple of the 'problem childs').

Encouraging MonoLists is partly what's beeing discussed at the moment.

@TheDarkGeneral
I've heard of those tournament scorings too. I mean, not the ones you mention specifically, but more the general 'trend' in 7th that Daemons crowded up the top of the scorecards.
I did play alot against Dark Elves in 7th Ed and I definately found them to be waay nastier than Daemons though. In 8th Ed I think the 'gaps' between All armies have been greatly reduced - but if you ask me which army has the nastiest synergies, items, and possible 'super-builds', I'd still say Dark Elves.. Before Daemons (and from what I hear Skaven and Lizardmen might very well bump Daemons to ~4th place too).

So yeah I'm not really saying our current book is without fault. I think we've done a pretty good job of pinpointing the actual offenders in this list though (listed in my last ranting post). Stuff like the Despair Icon, the Masque, cheap Master of Sorcery - what might seem like little details like that are to me the proverbial nails in the coffin of balance, whereas it's much less of an 'actual' issue whether or not Bloodletters are 12 or 14 pts (for example). Or whether or not you can field Flamers without also having Horrors, for that matter.

Making Daemons Unstable would be the pinnacle of empty gestures here. Solving nothing essentially. Not that you're arguing for it *lol* I just get the shivers every time I think about this notion because it pisses me off at a grand scale..

I think the flatness of the current Daemon book is a problem. I think the straightfowardness (simplicity) of defining what's "good" and "bad" is another problem. You don't need to understand much of anything about Warhammer to quickly realize that an optimal DoC army is Bloodletters supporting by HoT, with Flamers and Nurglings for support.

True Core, then: I'm not hating the concept. I like fluffy builds as much as the next guy really. Been playing mostly monogod lately tbh. I would not like such restrictions to be as "hard" as the ones you suggest though. Having the incentive would be fine, being tighed to it with ball and chain is simply not something I'm hoping for.

Even though the strength of such incentives vary in this re-write they are actually there. Particularly with the Khorne Section - where the Behemoth and Marked BSB give a pretty great incentive NOT to field any wizards. And perhaps this is enough (?) seeing as that combo of Bloodletters + Tzeentch Casters is the no-brain competative setup presently. Again: Instead of going at this issue with a Gordian strike, imposing hard restrictions that would just insult alot of players, perhaps a more surgical approach (trying to hit, again, the 'actual' problems) would be something you could sign off on?

Let me develop this:
Let's say for example Flamers were to be intrinsically tighed to Horrors (again) in a way that resembles your notions of True Core. I.e. every unit of Flamers being an essential "detachment" to a required unit of Horrors. That's a possibility.
Now.. does that mean we really have to implement the same kind of restriction for, say, Beasts of Nurgle? What are we really adressing then? Because to me that would merely come off as a kind of 'holier-than-thou' attitude.

The bottom line, and my main reservation, is simply what's already been mentioned: The true core 'mechanic' is gone. It existed in a different Army all together, a mixed force (mortals&daemons), and from what I hear a list that suffered from at least as many internal balance issues as our current book (except there was less whining about it because the problem as units being underpowered and too expensive rather than the opposite).

But for all I know you have a private line to GW and it's not really for me to discard these ideas of course. Maybe you're right that the notion of true core isn't as farfetched as it seems to me. And I'm not saying it couldn't be implemented with success - but I do believe it would be quite alot more tricky than what you make it out to be (fluffwise it'd be easy, balance-wise you'd definately run the risk of ruining about 2 units for every 1 unit you 'fix').

EDIT
To Whom it May Concern:
I did some more work on the Designer's Notes (my 3rd post on page 1) this morning. I have basically drafted notes for the Core Section, as well as some general notes concerning "Daemonic Gifts", "New Units" and other such "main" issues.
I highly recomend reading these Designer's Notes also for anyone who is rather new to this thread, as they help shed light on our thinking as we created the rewrite on page 1.
Feedback is, as always, highly welcome!


--------------------
Top
Talonz
Posted: Feb 25 2012, 06:09 AM


Greater Daemon
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1,453
Member No.: 1,456
Joined: 27-May 08



QUOTE (DaemonReign @ Feb 24 2012, 06:14 PM)
As I was saying:
The *current* DP is a Large Target.

page # please. Ive checked the back page summary and bestiary entry on the DP in our armybook twice now. It is not large target. GD specefically are in both army summary and bestiary. So what *exactly* makes you think the DP is?

I dont think it should be, fwiw. Its an ogreish sized daemon, thats all.
Top
DaemonReign
Posted: Feb 25 2012, 10:52 AM


The Eternal Bloodletter
*

Group: Heralds
Posts: 3,329
Member No.: 2,658
Joined: 24-January 11



Checking the book is good. wink.gif
You're right Talonz. My bad. I was remembering stuff all wrong.
The DP in the DoC book causes Fear (instead of Terror) and is not Stubborn (unlike the WoC version), I had confused the Large Target business as one of these "differing" parameters.

That - of course - makes its future status more of an open question. Since the Large Target status would essentially be something we'd "add" rather than something we'd simply "keep".

Just so I am understanding things correctly:
If the DP isn't a Large Target (but a monster/character) that means that it does get to Thunderstomp (D6 Hits, rather than just 1) but it doesn't have 18" inspiring presence. Right?

Assuming I got that right at least (again, sorry Talonz and thanks for correcting me!) that's actually a good thing because it means we can raise the ld to 9 and still have the GDs own a very distinctive "edge" as far as being Generals is concerned. That's good!!

For Large Target vs No Large Target discussion. The reason why I had this brainfart about the DP actually being a Large Target is that it goes on a 50mm base (not the 40mm Ogre Sized base), and while the old Be'lakor model is indeed roughly the size of an Ogre the new Plastic abomination certainly is not. So that status of being a "Monster", the base footprint, as well as the size of the actual model speaks toward it being a Large Target.

However, now that it isn't a damn Large Target, and since there are some positive aspects of this (we can give it ld9 and still have the GDs being better Generals!) I'd say we have at least as good a reason to let it remain a "non-large" target. smile.gif

If we also drop its wounds back to 4 (as TheDarkGeneral) suggests, then I'd also say that 225-250pts would be a pretty fair cost (with ld9, Mv6 as discussed earlier).
But I have to say I think it ought to have 5 wounds really.

EDIT
The ONE big problem with raising the DP to ld9 would be that the equal Leadership to the GDs would make it an open question whether the DP or the Greater Daemon (assuming you had one of each in your list) would be the General. Just as it is currently possible to have a DP in an army let by a Herald it would instead be possible to have a GD in an army let by a Daemon Prince. I bet some people would react against that possibility. All though most people wouldn't use this opportunity though, since the Inspiring Presence of the GDs are much more far-reaching..


--------------------
Top
bonesaww666
Posted: Feb 25 2012, 11:04 AM


Plaguerider
*

Group: Members
Posts: 475
Member No.: 2,989
Joined: 15-November 11



Yeah so if the DP were to only gets 1 stomp not D6, 12" inspiring presence and a reduction in wounds would defenitely put him in the 250-225 range. I know he would have more wounds then a Strigoi Lord but that would balance out the fact that he can't avoid shooting by hiding in a unit.
This would also correct the no Level 4 Mage in 2000 issue all in one fell swoop!


--------------------
Follow The Dread Host of Berelith Fell Hand through the Blood in the Badlands Campaign!
http://z7.invisionfree.com/wyrmling_x/inde...0#entry11881810
Top
DaemonReign
Posted: Feb 25 2012, 03:19 PM


The Eternal Bloodletter
*

Group: Heralds
Posts: 3,329
Member No.: 2,658
Joined: 24-January 11



All right!
So to sum up suggested 'changes' for the Daemon Prince:
1 - Increase Leadership value to 9.
2 - Decrease Movement to 6
3 - Decrease Wounds to 4
4 - Decrease BaseCost to 225-250pts

What, I wonder, is the input on this from TheRealVeon and JonathanC?

EDIT
And again:
Is it a problem that you'd be able to run a DP as General with a GD as a secondary Lord?
Is it worse than being able to run a Herald as General with a Prince as secondary Lord?

And I have always thought that Thunderstomp was dependant on whether not the Model is classified as a "monster".
Now people are telling me it's dependant on whether or not the model is a Large Target or not.
Surely the Daemon Prince is classified as a Monster. huh.gif


--------------------
Top
TheRealVeon
Posted: Feb 25 2012, 05:08 PM


Changebringer
*

Group: Members
Posts: 263
Member No.: 2,925
Joined: 28-August 11



It's monster status that gives thunderstomp, not large target. Honestly, I'd rather make it a large target and keep it at Ld 8 than up the leadership itself. That being said, what's listed above is ok, but I don't think GW is going to go with a mechanic that would allow a greater daemon to not be the general. It's less of a problem with the herald and prince since the herald is just a fancy bloodletter, etc.
Top
Talonz
Posted: Feb 25 2012, 06:39 PM


Greater Daemon
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1,453
Member No.: 1,456
Joined: 27-May 08



QUOTE
If the DP isn't a Large Target (but a monster/character) that means that it does get to Thunderstomp (D6 Hits, rather than just 1) but it doesn't have 18" inspiring presence. Right?


Correct. I have to admit, I did not realize our DP was getting Tstomp in this edition! I assumed that was a large target thing (7th hangover).

QUOTE
... that's actually a good thing because it means we can raise the ld to 9 and still have the GDs own a very distinctive "edge" as far as being Generals is concerned.


Ive only been saying that for the last 2 days/pages. tongue.gif

QUOTE
So to sum up suggested 'changes' for the Daemon Prince:
1 - Increase Leadership value to 9.
2 - Decrease Movement to 6
3 - Decrease Wounds to 4
4 - Decrease BaseCost to 225-250pts


Yes on all but wounds. He cant hide in units and is a juicy target. 5 wounds please. But again, my appraisal is based on him having stomp, not Tstomp so perhaps we should dicuss exactly what unit type a DP *should* be?

Ive just finished reading through the fluff and unit types. The DP was made a monster in 7th to put him on a bigger base and make sure he doesnt join units. When they reclarified the unit types and tied certain abilities to them, he gained TS as a consequence, and they didnt change that.

Should he remain as a monster? I dont think so. TS is a serious advantage and his size just doesnt warrant it. "Monsters are the largest beings in the warhammer world....bigger than a monstrous beast...dragons, greater daemons, and so on."

I just dont see the DP fitting that description. Bigger than dragon ogres (who are Mbeasts)? I dont think so. A Mbeast gains swiftstride. I dont see a DP gaining that without a gift. That only leaves Minfantry. This I think fits him perfectly.

So if this is the unit types that best fits him, that leads me back to my target; mv 6, ld 9, W5, MInfantry. No TStomp, no LTarget. Ballparked at 250 pts. He may require a note that he cannot join units though...?

QUOTE
Is it a problem that you'd be able to run a DP as General with a GD as a secondary Lord?


No. Why would it be? Choice is good.

Top
DaemonReign
Posted: Feb 25 2012, 10:59 PM


The Eternal Bloodletter
*

Group: Heralds
Posts: 3,329
Member No.: 2,658
Joined: 24-January 11



@TALONZ: Keeping or losing the 5th wound is all the same to me.
Either it'd have 5 wounds and cost 250-275pts.
Or it gets 4 wounds costing 225-250pts.
Cost goes from min-max depending on yes or no to "Monster" Status, and also very much depends on the *possible* ability to join units.

As for making it a Mounstrous Infantry Character;
I do see some reason and merit to your argument for making the DP a MI unit. But didn't we just remove the Legion Lords?
It would seem - at this point in our 'fixes' to the DP - it's starting to drift really heavily in that direction..
And yeah it would either force a Special Rule on us, saying it can't join units (like Scribes and Masque except this is not a Special Character), or it can join units (again). Of course, being MI it would still not get LookOutSir rolls, but it would be able to hide from alot of BS-based shooting.
The biggest boost of course being the sudden ability to let the joined unit soak wounds from instances of bad combat resolution. Basically it would be our Legion Lords but without the Locus (i.e. "Bindings")and a bit better Stats.

Why am I reluctant to this MI status?
- It's got a little bit to do with us already having improved a once 'poor but usable' model quite a bit already. We have concluded more than once that 'this is enough' only to return a while later with further improvements. Of course, these suggestions (ld9, mv6, 4wounds, *cheaper*) are not entirely 'buffs' in a direct sense. Still, we're essentially making the DP cost "half" of a basic Greater Daemon. And the Status of MI (and better Leadership) would allow you to be much more aggressive with your Greater Daemon (as he no longer must be General) while having a General (the DP) that is harder to catch (may hide behind obstacles etcetera), and costs little enough for you to afford to keep out of trouble (you can with-hold a 250pts model from combat a few turns, but the Level 4 with Balesword needs to get up close and personal in order to have a decent chance of returning his points, no?) ...
Basically I think whether or not the DP would be able to join units as an MI-model, I still think it's a pretty fundamental change from the current book.
We have sort of set out to improve on the current book rather than completely re-arrange its core principles.
Which is why I am not against the idea: It's just that this is exactly what the Legion Lords were for and if those don't make the cut into the "actual" re-write I see no way why a MI-DP would. Kind of..

But definately something for the Designer's Notes. smile.gif

The ld9, w5(4?), mv6 + cost reduction if we settle on 4 wounds! is stuff that I really have no problem with personally. I keep waiting on what the other guys are saying..
The Monstrous Infantry stuff, as stated, is something I'll glad write about in the Designer's Notes, but I wouldn't add it without unison support from the rest of the paricipants of this thread.



I think this one is something for the Designer's Notes, to be honest. Unless the rest of the people here really agree 100% with you Talonz. In those Designer's Notes we're already gonna mention our arguments for/against the Legion Lords (i.e. our version of Exalted Daemons) and I could see us writing about the "alternative" of revamping the DP in something that resembles the concept of the Legion Lords.

EDIT
*lol* that last paragraph is all misplaced and I don't remember where in the text it's supposed to go.. Maybe the beginning?? wacko.gif But I didn't delete because it actually makes for a decent summary of my post. haha


--------------------
Top
TheRealVeon
Posted: Feb 26 2012, 12:17 AM


Changebringer
*

Group: Members
Posts: 263
Member No.: 2,925
Joined: 28-August 11



I would like to keep the Prince as a monster, just as a nice bit of consistency (our Lords are all monsters). If we'd kept the Legion Lords, maybe, but since we didn't, I think it should stay that way.

Also, as Monstrous Infantry, it wouldn't get any Look out, sirs! because you can only take those with units of the same troop type. So he could squeeze into a unit, but it's not going to do him a whole lot of good.

I would say keep him a monster, keep him at 5 wounds and either make him leadership 9 no large target, or keep him leadership 8 and make him a large target.
Top
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you

Topic OptionsPages: (137) « First ... 96 97 [98] 99 100 ... Last »



Hosted for free by zIFBoards* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.1715 seconds | Archive