InvisionFree - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.

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 ... 99 100 [101] 102 103 ... Last » ( Go to first unread post )

 Alternate 8th Edition DoC army book, The definitive Daemon re-write.
DaemonReign
Posted: Mar 2 2012, 08:33 PM


The Eternal Bloodletter
*

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



Well if I only posted when I was sober I reckon this thread would be on page ~50 about now! biggrin.gif
But yeah, I do recall being a bit 'OTT' a couple of pages back.. Sorry about that.

That's 'fair enough' about the background-perspective concerning the Daemonic Rivalry. As your post says nothing of where the Unmarked Daemon Prince ends up in this equation I'm gonna assume that if you've got an 'Undivided' [Daemon Prince] as General then you could have him confer 'Inspiring Presence' to All Daemons regardless of Mark.

Just as I am going to assume that Furies would be susceptible to the 'Inspiring Presence' of the General regardless of his Mark.

Those assumptions being correct my conclusion is that your suggestion isn't that far from what I've been talking about lately, all though mine is even simpler:

'Daemons can only benefit from the 'Inspiring Presence' of a General with corresponding Mark. If the General has no Mark all Daemons benefit from 'Inspiring Presence', and Furies always benefit from 'Inspiring Presence' regardless of the Mark of the General.'

There, in one simple sentence, we've got all the variables accounted for that we need for a 'clear rule'.

I suppose we could do the same thing with your suggested 'polar-opposites' (Slaanesh-Khorne and Tzeentch-Nurgle) ultra-background oriented version. As I said earlier it's actually a 'lighter' restriction than the one I am suggesting (as mixes of Tzeentch and Khorne, as well as Slaanesh and Nurgle, would thus be totally unrestricted!) - but in the choice between the two I'd still prefer to just make it about having the same Mark [end of story] because it simpler to explain, easier to understand, and above all creates a definate unique role for the Daemon Prince to play:
'Ok so I want to make a force of mixed Daemons, hm.. What do I value the most? - The ultimate killing power of a Greater Daemon or being able to Inspire Leadership 9 for the whole of my army rather than merely a portion of it?'

Both your suggestion and my 'simplification' of it are rather equal arn't they? I just think if simplicity is what we're really after my version sort of wins out in the end.

This is all - of course - assuming that the Daemon Prince can remain at Leadership 9 (essentially being able to lead Greater Daemons, rather than being led by Heralds.. as it were) - because at this point I'm kinda worrying that this is what you are referring to when mentioning that you still have reservations about the Daemon Prince.

Drop the Leadership of the Daemon Prince back to 8 and these suggested restrictions on 'Inspiring Presence' suddenly become very much 'balance-issues', no longer being merely incentives or background-related rules (the latter being what we all seem to aspire for at this point).
But yeah.. I guess this is second guessing once more. Sorry. Just pointing out the fact that the issue of the Prince's Leadership becomes rather pivotal with these suggestions.

I maintain that I still think we should leave the BSB out of this all-together. 'Simplicity' being a good reason, but mostly because it's just unnecessarily 'harsh' in my opinion.

The access to Icons of the Battle Standard Bearer is an 'open question' as far as I am concerned. I think I see where you're coming from JonathanC, but at the same time:
Why would a Herald in a unit not be able to take an Icon that the unit itself is able to pick?
But of course, making all the Marked Icons (unit-icons and the 5th!) depend on alignment between BSB and General is a further incentive to have them 'aligned'.
So that one can go either way for me.

And ultimately I feel just like RealVeon writes above (regardless of the would-be similarities to Bloodlines in this issue): We've adressed this issue to a large extent by the details that we have revised throughout the Army List.

I'll be thinking hard on this over the night. Rest assured.

* Oh.. And I just drafted the Tzeentch Lore Section in the Designer's Notes.

Cheers!

EDIT
@TALONZ:
I just saw your quick post just at the end of the thread-page we just left.
I think the ramifications on your Armies is something we should make a note of. How many more players would feel like that? - If suddenly faced with these kinds of restrictions?
Obviously there are players like the DarkGeneral who wouldn't think such restrictions were going far enough.. but for me personally it's just not a huge issue because hey-whatever-I've-got-atleast-5k-of-each-mark..
I don't know if GW 'cares' about us.. the little people.. but I certainly think they ought to.
Is the addition of a background related 'restriction' really worth it, if the result is that a majority of today's Daemon players go 'meh, wtf, I was doing creating something unique over here...' (?)


--------------------
Top
Talonz
Posted: Mar 3 2012, 02:47 AM


Greater Daemon
*

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



QUOTE (DaemonReign @ Mar 2 2012, 08:33 PM)
Is the addition of a background related 'restriction' really worth it, if the result is that a majority of today's Daemon players go 'meh, wtf, I was doing creating something unique over here...' (?)

Its not like GW hasnt done that before, but i'd very much rather that *we* didnt do that...
Top
DaemonReign
Posted: Mar 3 2012, 04:52 AM


The Eternal Bloodletter
*

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



Yes GW has done stuff like that. But usually there's at least an ecomonic reason behind it. Like with the split of the three factions of Chaos - probably a good deal for GW as they got to sell 3 armies instead of just one.
Our 'Daemonic Rivalry' however.. Well what's the 'selling point' for GW really.

Thinking more and more that this issue is heading for the Designer's Notes. We should mention it just to tell them what we think they shouldn't do, with some alternative to what could be done instead (if you really have to).

EDIT
I was ordered out to a 'Rockabilly'-gig in the city tonight so I've actually only managed a few more lines of Designer's Notes.

Should have alot more time for working on this stuff in the coming 2 days.


--------------------
Top
TheRealVeon
Posted: Mar 4 2012, 02:00 AM


Changebringer
*

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



If I had to choose between the two versions, I would go with the Khorne/Slaanesh and Nurgle/Tzeentch pairing (anti-pairing?) because it's a bit less restrictive.

Also, I would say that the same principle (either this one or DaemonReign's) should also affect the BSB, but only if they've taken a banner from their god. If they have one of the un-marked banners, then everyone can benefit.
Top
DaemonReign
Posted: Mar 4 2012, 02:35 AM


The Eternal Bloodletter
*

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



Fair enough RealVeon.
For the 'Inspiring Presence' I'd be rather ambivalent to which version to go for, in the end. - If I had to choose one!
For 'Hold Your Ground' I do admit there's a certain concistency in letting the 'Rivalry' effect also this mechanic, I guess it'd be 'ok' with it as long as Undivided Icons remain 'universiall benefactors' - all though seriously wouldn't at least the "5th Marked BSB Icons" deserve a slight discount in actual cost given that they'd come with a whole set of restrictions all of a sudden:
1 - May only be taken by Herald of corresponding Mark..
2 - ... if the General is of corresponding Mark
3 - ... In which case no Unaligned Daemons benefit from 'Hold Your Ground' and;
4 - ... In which case no Unaligned Daemons benefit from 'Inspiring Presence'.

We have a saying in Sweden that goes something like 'Putting a cake ontop of another cake' and even though the portent is probably lost in the shrewd translation it's what I have ringing in my head when I see this supposedly 'background-related' restriction. wink.gif

But like I said: 'Fine' (!)
I'll be the first to admit it's a 'fluffy' mechanic. Certainly worth being fleshed out in the Designer's Notes, but judging from the comments on the last couple of pages a majority seems 'doubtfull' (at best) so adding this version of Daemonic Rivalry as 'hard fact'-suggestions in the re-write is something I'd think trice about.

Undead, Talonz, and Bonesaw666 have all stated their dislike (at least as I interpret it) of any kind of restrictions that go in this direction.
Me and TheRealVeon can perhaps be described as 'neutral' (?) and at least in my case I'm really only on this bandwagon as long as the Daemon Prince gets to keep a Ld value of 9.
JonathanC I interpret to be more or less in the 'pro-Rivalry' camp. He'll have to say himself whether he actually thinks it's of paramount importance in the end - at least his posts has been rather 'diplomatic' on the subject.
And then finally we got TheDarkGeneral who'd likely say 'Well it's better than Nothing! with respect to these suggestions. And I know there's loads of players who reside in his camp (lamenting the split of the Chaos Factions and virtually everything that came with that!) but catering fully to such sentiments is just impossible unless we're gonna completely revise the fundamental premises of this re-write at the last minute (i.e. drop the philosophy of actually 'building on the current Army Book').

So right now I am feeling that I should finnish drafting the Designer's Notes for the Daemonic Magic Lores. Which will give us some more time to head-but this issue, but in the end 'most of it' probably belongs in the Designer's Notes.

What we can do right away is come JonathanC's way about the access to Marked Icons for the Battle Standard Bearer. Let's stipulate that your General must be of the same Mark for any Marked Icons to be available to the BSB. This one I'll gladly go along with, as I suspect JonathanC will be more or less dissappointed with 'merely' adding the rest to the Designer's Notes.

How does that sound people?

EDIT
*Just finnished drafting Designer's Notes for the Slaanesh Lore. Only the Nurgle Lore left now. Probably have that done this evening!

EDIT 2
*Actually just finnished drafting the Designer's Notes for the Nurgle Lore as well. Moving on to dealing with some other things on the page 1 "Main Re-write" Summary now..

EDIT 3
Ok so I cleaned up the Section for Daemonic Icons on page 1, like so:
*****************************************************************************
DAEMONIC ICONS:
General:
Daemonic Icons are 'Magic Standards' and therefore only 1 of each Icon can be present in the same Army, unlike Daemonic Gifts that may be duplicated on different Characters. Any spells or items that effect 'Magic Standards' therefore also effects Daemonic Icons, unless specifically noted otherwise.
Icon Allowance for Daemonic Units:
Core Units = Any Icon of Corresponding Mark costing up to 35pts
Special/Rare = Any Icon of Corrsponding Mark costing up to 50pts
The Battle Standard Bearer = May pick any of the Undivided Battle Standards. May also pick any Icon of corresponding Mark when the General of the Army also has the same Mark. Note that a Daemonic Herald may carry a Battle Standard and also choose Daemonic Gifts as normal.

Khorne Icons
1) Skull totem: Unit automatically passes all “Enemy Sighted” tests. - 15pts
2) Icon of Endless War: Extra D6" to first charge of the game. - 25pts
3) Banner of the Blood God's Blessing: +1 Magic Resistance for the unit (to a maximum of 3). - 20pts
4) Icon of Crimson Carnage: The unit gains the Hatred Special rule. If a Herald of Khorne is in the unit they get to re-roll their missed to hit rolls in every round of combat, not just the first. - 50 points

Slaanesh Icons
1) Banner of Ecstasy: Stubborn for unit’s first break test. - 25pts
2) Siren Standard: Enemy may only hold as charge reaction. - 25pts
3) Icon of Exhilarating Vapours: The unit gains the benefits of the Soporific Musk gift - 25pts
4) Icon of Enchanting Beauty: Enemy unit wishing to shoot at unit carrying this standard must pass a Leadership test or may not fire this turn - 35pts

Nurgle Icons
1) Icon of Eternal Virulence: Poisoned wounds count double resolution - 20pts
2) Standard of Seeping Decay: The unit may re-roll failed ToWound rolls when making close combat attacks - 35pts
3) Pestilent Shroud Standard: The unit counts as being in soft cover (-1 ToHit modifyer) to enemy shooting. - 30pts
4) Icon of Stench: All enemy models in base contact with the unit gain the Always Strikes Last special rule (exactly as the effect of the 'Noxious Vapours' Gift) 50pts

Tzeentch Icons
1) Icon of Sorcery: Pink Horrors in the unit get +1 To Cast. - 25 points.
2) Banner of Change: Once per Friendly magic phase, D6 SD6 Hits against one enemy unit in base contact with banner bearer – 25 points
3) Vortex Standard: Pink Horrors in the unit get +1 to their channelling attempts. - 25 points.
4) Icon of the Essence: Pink Horrors ignore their first Miscast (exactly like Dark Magister Gift) - 20 points.

The Undivided Battle Standards
1. Great Standard of Sundering: At the start of the game, choose one Lore of magic. All casting attempts made by any wizards using this lore are at -2. In addition, any wizard using the lore of light will suffer a miscast on a casting roll that includes a double 1 or 2. - 60pts Or *same function as currently* but 70pts cost!*
2. Standard of Chaos Glory - 100pts *same function*
3. Banner of Unholy Victory 100pts = +D6 to CR
4. Great Icon of Despair 65pts = All Enemies within 12" have -1 Ld Penalty.
Note that the Banner of Hellfire has been removed, while its 'name' has been recycled as Tzeentch Marked BSB!

The Marked Battle Standards
*The requirement for a Battle Standard Bearer to pick any of these Icons is that his own Mark corresponds to the Icon in question, as well as the Mark of the General of the Army. Battle Standard Bearers gain access to any of the other Marked Icons in the same way.
(1) Khorne:
The Banner of Martial Pride: Whenever the unit with this banner suffers an unsaved wound from a ranged attack in the shooting phase, the firing unit immediately takes a S3 hit (resolved as shooting). In addition, if a spell cast by a wizard (friend or foe) in any way affects the unit with this banner (including randomly moving templates in subsequent turns, spells that have no target, and friendly augments or enemy hexes which target all units within a range) then the casting wizard suffers a S6 hit. – 75pts
(2) Slaanesh
Banner of Intoxication: Enemy units in base contact with the unit carrying this banner are never steadfast. – 70pts
(3) Nurgle
Standard of Endless Rot: +1 Regeneration for the unit. – 80pts
(4) Tzeentch
Banner of Hellfire: At the start of each combat phase, all enemy models in base contact with the banner bearer’s unit takes a S3 flaming hit. Any wounds caused in this process are added to combat resolution. – 70 points
****************************************************************************
Did I miss anything? smile.gif

EDIT
I really must say that our revised Icon Section is looking great as far as I am concerned. It's so neat and consistant the way each Section has 4 basic choices.
And for the record I really think the restriction on the BSB is exactly the kind of "fluffy" thing we're looking for.. I just can't help thinking restricting Inspiring Presence as well is too much.. Or not too much perhaps.. It's just that we'd no longer be talking about something strictly background related but instead something that alot of players would concider a definate "comp", so to speak.

EDIT
Essentially: I think that if we're serious about creating a set of rules geared toward inspiring 'associated' lists, strictly based on background and explicitly not effecting 'balance' or 'freedom of choice' then we have to make the available choice a 'positive' thing rather than a 'negative'.

Our set-up of the BSB access to Marked Icons would be an example of a 'positive' choice. I.e. it's not going to "hurt" your Army in any way to have the General be of a different Mark to that of the BSB-Herald, but if you align them you'll get a little 'benefit' in terms of a wider variety in choices for Icons that Herald has access to (any unused unit-icon + the Marked BSB).

The idea of restriction Inspiring Presence (and Hold Your Ground re-rolls) is the opposite kind of rule. A negative choice. Where you are forced to build your list in a very particular way in order for these fundamental mechanics to work like they do in 'every other army'. Hence you are penalized unless following a strict philosophy of list-building, in which case you don't so much gain anything but instead just reach 'equality' for these mechanics compared to other armies.

I'm all in favor of associated rules. I think we've done a pretty good job so far on fleshing out the precedence of the current Army Book in that direction.

An example of a 'positive' mechanic that I just thought of (probably won't fly, either with you guys are GW but just a brainstorming example!) is to give an incentive to for 'associated' Daemons Armies by saying that:
If you spend your Core Requirement on Daemons from one single Mark you may count any Furies toward that same Core Requirement!
Again, this is not a 'serious' suggestion as such - I'm just trying to display what I mean by creating 'positive' incentives rather than negative ones.
Another idea could be:
If you spend your Core Requirement on Daemons from one single Mark you may count 1 Rare Unit as Special.

You may argue that such mechanics would be strange given the precedence of 8th Edition - but honestly no more 'strange' or unorthodox compared to the "Inspiring Presence for half of your [theorethical] army" that JonathanC is suggesting.

Any of the above suggestions (Furies counting to Core, or one Rare choice becoming Special) would furthermore be truly synergistic with the positive restrictions we've implemented on the BSB's access to Mark Icons. Because if all your Core troops are (say) Bloodletters, so that you can take a Skullshrine from the Special Allowance, then naturally you'd have a strong incentive to get a HoK BSB and a BT-General as well - and viola(!) suddenly you've been steered into building a very associated list without having to sit there and grind your teeth in hatred of a rules-designer who may have creative negative restrictions on your favorite army that you find completely arbitrary and boring.

Anyway.. I might do some further tweaking on page 1 at this point. I did see some "wordings" in the Icon Section for example that can be written better. But other than that I'll try to refrain from making this wall of text any taller before I get some feedback from the rest of the board.

May the dark gods be with you. cool.gif

EDIT
I tweaked the wording a little bit for the two "new" Unit Icons in the Nurgle Section, just so that they read more clearly.. The change has been pasted into the 'sample' of the Icon Section above as well so you don't need to go to page 1 to review it.

EDIT
Are everybody appreciating the impact of the 3rd wound we've given to Bloodcrushers, as well as the suggested addition of the 'Serpent of Slaanesh' and Behemoth of Khorne (as mount options)?

Herald of Khorne on Juggernaut will get 3 wounds.
Herald of Slaanesh on Serpent will get 3 wounds.
Herald of Khorne Battle Standard Bearer on Behemoth will have an 18" radius for 'Hold Your Ground'.

Just something I've been thinking about lately really.. We're adding things a bit unevenly to the Marks here (Tzeentch and Nurgle won't have access to 3-wound Heralds not 18" BSB-bubbles)... I'm not saying it's a problem just asking if the rest of you are conscious of these facts. (?)

EDIT
While I'm at it with 'second guessing' stuff in general:
We removed the Winged Horror Gift (DP gets wings by an upgrade specific to its profile, Herald of Tzeentch has to buy a disc to Fly..) - now, at the time when we made this decision I thought we had pretty good reason (prevent abuse, basically) and as with the above mentioning of the Jugger/Serpent/Behemoth issue I haven't really changed my mind either.. But this certainly seems like the kind of 'edit' that will disgruntle lots of players who's been building "HoT with Wings" models for an Edition-and-a-half.. Is it worth it?


--------------------
Top
JonathanC
Posted: Mar 5 2012, 08:05 PM


Greater Daemon
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1,246
Member No.: 2,672
Joined: 5-February 11



Well I've caught up now I think and will try cover as much of the discussion from the last week or so as possible.

Firstly DarkGeneral's suggestions - the true core idea seems like a retrograde step to me and not one we will be implementing. I think it works OK for Empire/Skaven/etc who have many cheap (5pt or so) troops to use as your "cumpolsory" unit requirement before you have access to weapons teams, detachments, etc. If it then turn out DarkGeneral called it right and it does become implemented in some form then kudos to him, but I would be surprised to say the least.

A lot of the unit suggestions seem a bit retro as well, and in a way the system of increased gifts and upgrades we have given them applies much of the same effect just in different ways. I quite liked his suggestions on Horrors though. Any opportunity to link them closer to their sacred number (9) is something I like and I had similar thoughts regarding increasing their Initiative to 4. I can't see how those changes would warrant a price increase like theDarkGeneral suggested though. Seems like they should stay the same or get cheaper to me.

Daemon Prince - I'm a little confused over why further changes to the DP were required and I noticed it sparked a lot of debate, One thing I currently like about the DP is that he is Ld8, so doesn't have to be the General if a non-BSB Herald is presesnt. Its proved to be very useful in the few games I have used him recently as he inevitably dies whilst the Herald protected by the unit sometimes survives. Naturally the odds of a DP surviving the game with the changes we have made to his Wounds, marks and gifts alleviates that somewhat, but I still think the flexibility is very useful and fitting to his current background where he is reviewed in contempt to a degree by other "pure" Daemons. So it seems to me if you are going to make significant changes to his status within the army you're talking about revising his background too, which isn't something we were planning on doing as far as I can remember. As for the debate over whether it should be a large target, monstrous infantry or whatever, then the only way to answer that question is to just look at the model and compare it to other's of similar size. I don't have the new plastic DP myself but I have noticed it is a bit bigger than the old metal ones and not that far off a GD in size, so I could go either way on this.

Lord of Change - I noticed you went for giving it a "universal Loremaster special rule, but wouldn't giving him the Loremaster daemonic gift have exactly the same effect without the need to create a new special rule?

Daemonic Rivalry - Well I went back and read unded's and bonesawws comments and unded didn't even mention Rivalry, he just focussed on true core, while bonesaww seemed interested in the idea at least and wasn't ruling it out totally. The fact that it affects the pairings Talonz usually uses is unfortunate to say the least. If it makes it any easier to accept it would effect the Nurgle/Tzeentch dominated armies I usually use as well, but its still something I am willing to accept all the same in the name of having a more interesting and background influenced army. Its not a change that will make my army stronger, which means their are bound to be DoC players that won't like it, but sometimes though these things are necessary and you have to take the rough with the smooth.

Also I would point out we wouldn't be the only army that would have to put up with character/leadership type restrictions. Dark Elves have their restrictions on Khainite units/characters, Skaven have limitations on which chracter can ride their big contraptions and which units can push them. Ogres have a War Beast unit that can't use the General's LD or BSB and can only be joined one character in the army, who cannot be the General himself in spite of having a high enough Ld.

At the very least I'd say we are 50/50 split in favour of this idea, much the same amount of support that it had the first time around I think, which definitely means it should be in the appendix/designers notes if nowhere else.

BSB Icons - I'm not really sure what seperating the marked BSB's from the unit Icons acheives, other than to add in an extra level of unnecessary detail. It was easier to cover them when they were all grouped together.

Finally, I don't think the differences in Khorne/Slaanesh mounts with those of Nurgle and Tzeentch are anything to worry about. Variety between them is good just as long as its in character. smile.gif


--------------------
Come on Tzeentch!

Do you like words and pictures arranged together to tell a story? If so, check out my battle report thread here.
Top
DaemonReign
Posted: Mar 6 2012, 03:13 AM


The Eternal Bloodletter
*

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



Daemon Prince
The background goes both ways here as I recall. In the present Army Book there's talk about the Daemon Princes coming in all shapes and sizes. Some of them are hardly more powerfull than a Herald, while some of them tower over the Greater Daemons in terms of power. They are described as the 'only' Daemonic entities that have a 'free will' (making them stand apart from the rest, as it were) and I'd personally say it makes alot more sense for a Daemon Prince to lead a Greater Daemon compared to the present status where a measly Herald can be the General of a Daemon Prince.
Of course, that's how it works in our current book. A book where I think the DP ended up in a wierd limbo to be honest. It would be very interesting to actually have Mat Ward explain in detail 'what he was thinking' when he made that profile.. What was he worrying about? What did he envision?
The fact that we (as players) have found some uses for the Daemon Prince in the way that you describe JonathanC doesn't make it any less weird for me. A Lord-level choice that is generally overcosted for what it brings to the table and only has utility when treated as a strictly expendable asset. (?)

The 'Leadership 9' was a strong demand from Talonz's court. I wouldn't have made a fuss about it myself - but that's probably because the Ld8-Prince is 'all I've ever known'. And again, from what I remember Daemon Princes are described as actually being more powerfull than Greater Daemons (at least in part) where-as I am naturally not doubting for one second that your basing your arguments on "fluff-texts" found elsewhere (perhaps even in the present book, and I missed them??)

My point would be that there exists some contradictions in the background of the Daemon Prince. Which gives us some 'freedom' in terms of deciding where to put him. I guess Talonz ought to come back here and redress his arguments for the Ld9 himself. I could go either way with it:
1 - On the one hand I was actually feeling we had buffed the Prince quite enough. I was worrying it was "too cheap" way back in this thread, as I am sure you remember.
2 - On the other hand I do agree with Talonz that in the choice between having a Herald being the boss of a DP, or having a DP be the proverbial boss of a GD - the latter makes more sense to me. Despite being the very opposite of how things work presently.

So yeah looking at the Daemon Prince by itself I can live with both Ld8 and Ld9.

The Daemon Prince being Ld9 would however grant a choice for Unmarked General that would make it so much easier for me to accept this idea of Daemonic Rivalry as being a fluff oriented restriction. Make the Prince Ld8 and the Khorne\Slaanesh Nurgle\Tzeentch polar opposite restriction on Inspiring Presence becomes much more of a hard restriction which you have no way of escaping.

Lord of Change
Yes probably better to just say he has the Loremaster Gift innately.

BSB Icons
Hm.. I thought it looked simpler and more clear this way. The icons previously known as our 5th Marked BSBs under a separate heading in the Battle Standard Section. I know some of the wording there needs further cleaning up. It just looks more easy to understand in this way. Naturally not a big deal. It is the portent of it that matters. And the previous structure of this particular section had the same portent so..

Restictions in other Armies
You mention Dark Elves, Skaven, Ogres and that is all true of course. I would say that such restrictions are comparable to our Scion Rules, the way in which certain Gifts are only available to certain Marks of Daemons, certain Mounts only available to certain Daemons etcetera.
Having Inspiring Presence not work on 1 quarter of the Army looks like something slightly different to me.

As I was also typing yesterday it is the negative incentive here that bothers me. We are talking about a restriction that decreases variety by punishing a certain kind of builds, and that is kinda hard for me to accept if we are serious about it being a strictly background related thing.
Finding a positive incentive would be much better in my mind. Whereas you are allowed to mix Khorne and Slaanesh Daemons without feeling choked about it, but perhaps gain something little on the side if you do not.
Kinda like the setup of the Icons we got now, thats a really nice background related restriction that I for one think suffices all by itself to give exactly the kind of soft incentive to build fluffy lists that we are really looking for here. *Together with ld debuffs being more tighed to Slaanesh Daemons, together with Khorne specific items discouraging the use of wizards.

And if further discussions render the DP going back to Leadership 8 then I am sorry to say that this would move me from being slighly neutral to being completely against the Inspiring Presence restriction. Because I cannot get over the fact that it is not appearing to be strictly background related, but instead becomes a very definate restriction in terms of listbuilding without even having a specific aim for what it is supposed to restrict. We have no idea really how it would hit Daemonic Builds, except that it would decrease variety.

Certainly an issue for the Designers Notes however. Definately. Whether or not it gets implemented beyond those Notes! And further discussion to be had too, naturally. Good to see you found the time to catch up with this thread too. We are on the verge of finnishing Step One of this little project. These last remaining issues are hard nuts to crack so lets just keep at it. smile.gif


--------------------
Top
TheRealVeon
Posted: Mar 6 2012, 02:19 PM


Changebringer
*

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



Daemon Prince
As far as this goes, I still say that they should either be Ld 9 or Ld 8 and Large Target. Actually, if I had to choose between those two options, I'd say Ld8/LT. The fluff pretty much says that they are powerful as you want them to be without being very specific. That being said, I still feel that Greater Daemons wouldn't be inclined to take orders from someone who was once a mortal.

Perhaps, if we make them Ld 8/LT we could have Be'Lakor be Ld9/LT and have that be your option if you really wanted to make an undivided Ld9 general. This is also my not-so-subtle way of bringing up the Be'Lakor is Leadership 10 issue again.

Lord of Change
The reason we went with a separate rule was that there was a bit of confusion as to what rules the LoC had exactly and the difference between the Loremaster (special rule) and the Loremaster (gift). So we just came up with a rule that provides the exact same benefit as the Loremaster (gift), but it very clearly lays out what the LoC has. I kind of like it for that reason, but if you think it's unnecessary, we can just give it the gift instead.

Daemonic Rivalry
I'm really sympathetic to DaemonReign's idea of positive versus negative rules. My main issue with this concept is not that I don't find it 'fluffy' or out-of-bounds for the army, but that it's too punitive. After playing a few game with a friend's Orcs and Goblins, I feel the same way about the animosity rule; it's fluffy, but I think it penalizes the army too much. Of course it's a personal preference, but that's where I'm coming from.

So for me coming at it from the perspective of making the daemons of individual gods work better together than making them work less well with daemons from another god is preferable.

So here are some ideas I'll throw out:

--There's the thought of making some special/rare choices core if the general is of the same god or if a significant percentage of the army was of one god. This is possible, but it seems like a concept that GW is moving away from. The last army I can remember that has something like this is the Tyranids and that was 2/3 years ago. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

More general thoughts:

--Daemons of a particular god can use the leadership of any character belonging to that god as though they were the general.

--If the BSB uses a 5th icon of any particular god then:

Daemons of that god can always reroll their leadership tests even if some other rule or effect prevents this.

or

All Daemons of that god that are on the board may reroll leadership tests even if not in range.

Those are just some general suggestions. They not really meant to be things I expect to be implemented, but are simply illustrative of the type of rule I would be more willing to accept than troop choice restriction or Ld restriction.

Edit
I forgot to mention the layout of the Icons. Initially, I would say that the 5th Icon should be with the other icons of that god, but now I'm not sure. In all other books, the standards (and other equipment) aren't listed in numerical order as ours currently are. So really, the only distinguishing feature is their point cost. We of course can use this to pick out the '5th' icon for the BSB, but it may be simpler to list each of these special '5th' icons with the other unmarked icons and say that it may be taken if the general is of the same god.
Top
Talonz
Posted: Mar 6 2012, 04:33 PM


Greater Daemon
*

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



Jonathon could you point me towards this background material that makes you think DPs dont make good leaders? Because honestly my impression is quite the reverse.

LD9 is desired imo due to the character being a lord. It also gives us an ld9 option other than giant point sink greater daemons. I believe fluff and player choice justifies this in spades.

The heralds and greater daemons are personifications of the chaos gods, and thus are 'shackled' into their roles to a certain degree. Daemon princes are raised powerful mortals with goals and freewill of their own. In the long run, I cant think of anything more dangerous! Could they lead a daemonic incursion? Absolutely! Could you subordinate one to a GD? Sure, although it wont likely last...to a herald? Not bloodly likely.

Think about all the fluff...and even the D&D infernal mythos. Greater daemons could be more physically powerfull than princes, but the princes ran the show. Obviouslly the chaos gods trump them in the warhammer universe, but the same concept applies; GDs are the hammer of the gods, the princes the wily and wise unseen leaders, just as likely to have others do their bidding as be the knife in the dark themselves...

I cant see anything supporting large target either, honestly its a stretch for a dp to even be a monster frankly, but thats easier to swallow as other nonlarge target monsters do currently exist. They simply arent the size of GDs, stegadons, dragons, etc.

This is mostly a retread of discussions already had though, so really, im curious as to why you state the fluff doesnt support a leader DP? They led legions in the past, its only with the current book that they didnt, and thats the aberration imo.
Top
Talonz
Posted: Mar 6 2012, 07:11 PM


Greater Daemon
*

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



Yeah reread the last paragraph of the daemon prince bestiary entry.

If you have the hordes of chaos book, check out these examples; "daemon princes are considered by some to be even more dangerous than greater daemons, for they still retain much of their individuality and independence, unlike other daemons which are simply vessels for their masters will."

"daemon princes are known to command legions..." and "the oldest and most powerful daemon princes are worshipped as deities in their own right".

exalted daemons (equivalent to current heralds in the daemonic hierachy I would say); "..are not as powerful as daemon princes" and "follow daemon princes and greater daemons into battle".

And leadership for daemons isnt the same as mortals, imho. It represents an ability to open and maintain portals from the realm of chaos to the mortal realm, and exert their will on keeping those daemons on the field of battle (instability).

Lords should excell at this, and a hierarchy of ld 7 for daemons, 8 for heralds, 9 for dps, and 9+lt bonus for gds fits this perfectly imo.

As an aside, I think furies should be bumped up to ld6 personally to fit into that as the lowest of daemons (just as they used to be!).
Top
DaemonReign
Posted: Mar 6 2012, 09:21 PM


The Eternal Bloodletter
*

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



Well at least we're all disagreeing! *lol*

I'll try to take this point-by-point, beginning by checking off some 'simple' details:

The Icon Section
TheRealVeon has got this covered from what I read. The way I've listed it now on page 1 is really irrelevant in that regard (in the end it's the pdf the counts!) - I only meant to make the 'mechanics' of the Icon Section crystal clear to 'anyone' that might read it. I moved the Marked BSB away from the Marked Unit Icons to avoid confusion between them. TheRealVeon is correct that they should be listed according to pointcost in the final presentation. Just as in a real Army Book.

Be'lakor
Good that RealVeon brings this up again. The issue of the Leadership 10 for Be'lakor was lost in the haze of other things discussed last time around. The entire profile is JonathanC's doing, so I'm just repeating it here to make sure it's not forgotten once more.

Furies
Suggesting the go back to Leadership 6 would certainly warrant us putting their pointcost back to 12pts again. What do the rest of you say about this suggestion put forth by Talonz. I'm on the fence, to be honest, simply because I don't want to fall victim to the old 'buff-everything' malady.

Daemon Prince
I think the arguments for making the Daemon Prince a Large Target are pretty convincing, but I have to say that Talonz is making the most convincing arguments right now when it comes to the Leadership-issue.
Large Target or Not
The current Daemon Prince has 'grown' conciderably in size as far as the model goes. And we've added a 5th wound too.
Leadership 9/8?
Talonz goes through the trouble of referring to older incarnations of Daemons to support his claims here. I wasn't. I have been referring to the present Daemon Book all along - where the 'fluff' concerning the Daemon Prince reads pretty much exactly like in the older books, except when you get to the actual profile you're suddenly staring down on facts that in no way mirror that fluff.
Edit - JonathanC brought up the fact that the current Leadership value of 8 allows you to use the Daemon Prince as an 'expendable asset' (i.e. have a Herald be the General), and of course that's true.. Sad fact is that's probably the only way to use the current DP that is even remotely 'viable'. But the fact that we've 'gotten used' to the Daemon Prince working in this way - on collision course with its own fluff - is not something I would give any merit to. And as JonathanC also notes: We have increased the 'viability' of the Daemon Prince quite alot (even without concidering the latest increase to Leadership or the suggested status of Large Target). Let's face it: It's simply a viable choice in the army now. A good unit for the points you pay, a fully viable General too, and can be made into a viable Wizard as well.

So after the reading the last few posts it's starting to look to me as though the Daemon Prince should be a Large Target and have Leadership 9. Edit We'd have to take another look at the vanilla cost of the DP though..

And - lo and behold - such a Daemon Prince would make me feel a whole lot less uncomfortable with the Mark-related restrictions on 'Inspiring Presence' that JonathanC have been arguing for lately (!)
Because if the DP has the same IP-radius and and the same Leadership as Greater Daemons, then the 'polar opposite' IP-restriction suggested becomes exactly the kind of strictly background related 'thing' that JonathanC is suggesting (and that I think we all agree with on a philsophical level).

If - however - the Daemon Prince is Ld8 and we implement the Khorne/Slaanesh Tzeentch/Nurgle restriction on 'Inspiring Presence', then we are putting a chokehold on people's list construction. And that's something we could do (!) but for other reasons.. If we're serious about it being background-related, then it should be in.. well.. the Background.

Personally I think the 'positive' restrictions of having to align your BSB with the Mark of the General in order to get wider/better access to Icons is enough.

Beyond that I would not complain about stipulating that you have to field a unit of Horrors for every unit of Flamers in the Army. I know such 'mechanics' seem to be a thing of the past - but in the case of Flamers it would be both "background related" (they used to be a pure upgrade to Horrors, right?) as well as attacking the 'abuse' issue of Flamers (where opinions vary of course, but it seems Flamers being a 0-1 choice is a very popular 'comp'.. just saying).

Lord of Change
TheRealVeon has a definate point about the current wording avoiding alot of possible confusion. Despite being a quite redundant 'extra' Special Rule that's really already covered by the entry for "Loremaster" in the Gift Section. Of course, that's assuming that people don't read the 'new' book with all its entries.. smile.gif
Edit - I was cut short there by doings here at work. I guess what I was saying about the 'Universal Loremaster' is that this 'Special Rule' is rather redudant in light of our 'Loremaster' Gift working exactly the same way.. The 'name' Universal Loremaster is quite appealing however, to me at least, as it says something about (again) the 'background' of the LoC in particular. Perhaps a combination would be to write:
Universal Loremaster - Lords of Change always have the 'Loremaster Gift'.
Or something like that.. Just as long as it's clear that Gift doesn't impede their actual Gift Allowance.


--------------------
Top
Talonz
Posted: Mar 7 2012, 12:46 AM


Greater Daemon
*

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



QUOTE (DaemonReign @ Mar 6 2012, 09:21 PM)

Daemon Prince
I think the arguments for making the Daemon Prince a Large Target are pretty convincing...The current Daemon Prince has 'grown' conciderably in size as far as the model goes. And we've added a 5th wound too.

So after the reading the last few posts it's starting to look to me as though the Daemon Prince should be a Large Target and have Leadership 9. Edit

I havn't the faintest idea how you come to that conclusion. It has not grown considerably in size since the original metal DP models. It has gotten more buff, sure, so more meat on the frame, but not otherwise grown in size to my knowledge.

A quick google search brings up some threads where it is comparable to an ogre tyrant. Both of which have 5 wounds under our current writing.

Neither of which are or should be large targets. Seriouslly, other than some kind of preference (which veon is the only one I see leaning towards this in some kind of justification for an oop special character) there is no model or rules driven justification to make the DP a large target.

edit:I made a lot quotes from the HOC book on DPs, only because some might not have it. The last paragraph in the current DOC book has some insight into the ld' value' of a dp and I referenced that without quoting from it assuming we all have access to it.
Top
DaemonReign
Posted: Mar 7 2012, 12:57 AM


The Eternal Bloodletter
*

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



QUOTE (Talonz @ Mar 7 2012, 12:46 AM)
A quick google search brings up some threads where it is comparable to an ogre tyrant.  Both of which have 5 wounds under our current writing.

Neither of which are or should be large targets.

That's a pretty good point Talonz. Admittedly.

Damn it.. *lol*
This was a tricky subject for us to agree on.
*Gotta go*

EDIT
And Talonz, I wasn't having a go at you when it comes to those 'references' to previous Daemonic Army Books. wink.gif I re-read my own post and I guess if that post is read with a 'tone' (that certainly wasn't intended) I could be understood as saying something 'other' than I really meant..
And what I meant was basically merely that you needn't go further than our present Army Book to find a blatant disharmonious relationship between the actual Profile of the DP and what the background text says about it.
And actually, after subjecting myself to the following 'thought-experiment':
Imagine that you know nothing about the Daemon Prince and it's current Profile; All you have is the sum of all the available fluff-texts, the fluff/profiles of the Greater Daemons, and a set of alternatives for these (below) variables:
DP #1 - Monsters/MI Leadership 9
DP #2 - Monster+Large Target Leadership 8
DP #3 - Monster'Large Target Leadership 9.

I'm pretty sure I'd pick 'DP #1' as my first choice if - as it were - all the other variables of the game except the [i]fluff
in comparison to the Greater Daemons were unknown to me.

- When it comes to size the Daemon Prince is an ascended Mortal, so more likely than not to actually be more or less smaller compared to the 'giant-sized by nature' Greater Daemons. I feel that the 'possibility' of a Large Target Daemon Prince would not be wrong though - but perhaps not as default! - by for example an upgrade in the profile (sort of like I suggested before that the Legion Lords would be able to upgrade to MI-status), but at this point I feel such an upgrade would be too unorthodox and should probably be left alone for the sake of simplicity.
Putting it like this: 9 DPs out of 10 are likely to be 'smaller' in size compared to a Greater Daemon - speaking strictly of fluff - so yeah Talonz can't be ignored on the Large Target issue in my humble opinion.
However, keeping the status being a 'Monster' seems prudent for simplicity's sake. Then we don't have to go into the nitpicking of Special Restrictions on joining units, "All Daemon Lords" are simply Monsters & Characters and that's really the solution with the least fuss. I think. Well we've been over this.

- When it comes to Leadership (without going too much into the semantics of what it represents for Mortals vs Daemons in terms of psychological stamina compared to pure 'stability') let's again review the fact that the DP is an ascended Mortal. Who-ever this guy 'was' (in real life) he started out as (probably) a Chaos Warrior, got to Hero Status, moving on to Lord Status, and then attained Daemonhood by becoming a Prince. In 'real life' (thus) this guy definately had Ld10. Of course - Daemons are Unbreakable compared to Mortals so I know it's a bad comparison on a purely mechanical basis - but (again) being on par with Daemonic Heralds implies stuff about the DP that only JonathanC seems to see in the fluff at this point. Taking my silly thought-experiment above, I'd say that 9 Princes out of 10 would actually be at least as 'stable' as the Greater Daemons.

Oh alot of blabbering from my 'morning coffee session' here. My hat is off to anyone who actually bothers to read it. ninja.gif

Daemonic Rivalry
I failed to adress TheRealVeon's brainstorming suggestions for 'positive' Rivalry-mechanics in my last post. Basically I think the spirit of his thinking are along the lines of thinking that we should be looking.

It all got me thinking about the 'Radiance of Dark Glory' Gift we suggest in the Undivided Gift Section. "The Daemon loses one less wound from Instability".
- First of all I'll reflect that it's kinda funny that we've added a Gift that essentially increases our Leadership 'to 10', given that actually writing "Leadership 10" in a Daemonic Profile is appearantly such a huge 'no-no'. wink.gif
But whether the Gift itself is a good idea or not, I could see a similar mechanic work for 'Inspiring Presence', as an incentive with basis in the background:
For example:
Daemons that share the Mark of the General may count the effect of 'Inspiring Presence' as one digit higher than what is written on the General's Profile.
Thus: The more 'MonoGod' you build your list, the more of your Army will essentially have access to Ld10. Which seems more or less 'balanced' compared to the losses of variety/synergy that comes with foregoing the mixed List!
Now... You could of course add to this that certain Marks are Polar opposites to the extent that there's actually a 'negative' involved, which would require some fleshing out of the above 'rule':
Daemons that share the Mark of the General may count the effect of 'Inspiring Presence' as one digit higher than what is written on the General's Profile.
Diametrically opposed Marks will however suffer a (-1) penalty on 'Inspiring Presence' by the same token: Khorne's influence on Slaanesh troops is weakened and vice versa, and the same is true for the relationship between Tzeentch and Nurgle.


This would be a nod toward JonathanC's idea for Rivalry.
I personally feel, however, that if we're gonna do any kind of 'Rivalry Rule' like this (in any shape) we should focus on the specific Mark for simplicity:
Khorne benefits Khorne Daemons, period - and so on...
Because I think the golden measure here would be to find a rule that is:
1 - Background-related
2 - Simple
3 - A positive incentive rather than a negative one.

And, as ever, I'm wondering if we are not missing the forrest for the trees here - as it were - we have been revising the entire Army Book from an associated perspective, hopefully taken care of the 'abuse'-factors that would make Rivalry necessary from a balance-standpoint, and the 'incentive' to aligne your Marks (to some degree at least) is already there in the shape of our rules for BSB Access to Marked Icons.. It's a snowball effect:
If my General is Khorne I'll have a good incentive to have a Khorne Herald for BSB, in which case it only stands to reason (due to Locus) that I also have atleast one Khorne 'unit'.
And restricting people in any way beyond that is something that's gonna be hated on by at least as many as those who might like it - I think the last few pages of this thread goes to establish that fact. wink.gif

Sorry for textwalling yet again. Hope it got us somewhere. smile.gif

EDIT
While on the subject of Background:
I'll just mention something else that's on my mind with this re-write. Something that'll we'll hopefully remember to get back to once we have finally come to some sort of conclusion on the current subjects being discussed:
I want to 'clean up' some of the background with Daemons. As I find the current 'fluff' texts in our current Army Book to be a little bit inconclusive:
On the one hand Daemons are described as pure apparitions, extentions of the Wills of the Dark Gods, taking the shape of whatever horrors and nightmares their mortal spectators might have.. This is a description I personally prefer!
Then there are inconcistencies, as I see it.
Bloodletters are described as "mortal champions" who have essentially ascended. I think lines like that should be omitted from the text entirely.
Essentially the Daemon Prince ought to be the exclusive link to 'mortals' in the Daemon Army Book - I guess that's what this boils down to in the end.
Daemons, Heralds, Greater Daemons = All apparitions, all manifestations of raw power, all lacking free will and to a large extent even sentience.
The Daemon Prince(s) = Ascended Mortals, sentient, with a more or less defined element of free will.

We can discuss this later.. Just had it on top of my head.


--------------------
Top
JonathanC
Posted: Mar 7 2012, 12:35 PM


Greater Daemon
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1,246
Member No.: 2,672
Joined: 5-February 11



You could also add the scheming of Lords of Change as being another potential contradiction - if they have no free will can they really make plots and plans? You could argue though that lacking free will doesn't mean they lack personality, or that all Daemons have a degree of free will (with the Greater Daemons having the most of all) but their creator can control them like puppets should he wish to. The biggest contradiction in our background though is at the bottom of p10 of the current book, where a character known as Poxfulcrum starts off as male but then becomes female at the end of the paragraph! They definitely made a mistake there I think (for the record, there is a nearly identical story in Codex: Chaos Daemons, but the character is female throughout).

Anyway, to answer Talonz question first of all, when I re-read the DP entry in the book I couldn't find the part I was referring to. It turned out the bit I was remembering was in Codex: Chaos Daemons instead, where it states: "Daemon Princes often act as lieutenants to the Greater Daemons - powerful warriors and forceful leaders capable of fighting at the forefront of a daemonic assault. However, other Daemons consider Daemon Princes to be inferior - deeply and irrevocably tainted by their mortal origins."

Now I've always considered the background for Daemons in 40k and WFB to be essentially the same, just with different spins on it according to which setting it is in. Certainly some of the comments made in White Dwarf by the designers when the two books were released said this was pretty much the case. I'm sure we could argue over the validity of applying 40k Daemon background to WFB Daemon background until the cows come home, but thats the way I see it anyway. Certainly I quite like the idea that whilst Daemonhood is the ultimate reward for a Chaos Warrior or Traitor Marine, and they are considered the ultimate lords of the Warriors of Chaos and Chaos Space Marine armies, that when they join their feloow Daemons they are somehow found wanting and not held in as high regard as they expected. Its like the last laugh is on them from their patrons - we have your soul and you have immortaility, but its not what you thought it would be. (There was an old story from one of the fantasy short story compliations published before I even got into the hobby that had a Chaos Champion reach Daemonhood but then suddenly realise as his soul was stripped away it wasn't worth it and he had made a terrible mistake. I think it was by William King who also wrote a lot of the fluff for the early army books.)

And after that essay I am running out of time, so I will just state I am slightly more neutral now on the Ld9 for the DP idea. Still not really in favour of it per se but I think it could happen. When it comes to Be'lakor, well he is Ld10 because I more or less coppied his profile from Storm of Chaos, but I quite like the idea that he could be the ultimate General for Daemons, in the same way Archaon is the ultimate General for Warrios of Chaos (and the only one in that army to have Ld10). Lets face it, Be'lakor spent millenia as a spectre with a destiny he couldn't control, if he was finally released from his curse by Tzeentch it must be for a good reason and with a specific purpose in mind, so being the Daemon to lead the armies during the end times seems to fit him well.

I'll come back to other stuff later.


--------------------
Come on Tzeentch!

Do you like words and pictures arranged together to tell a story? If so, check out my battle report thread here.
Top
DaemonReign
Posted: Mar 7 2012, 01:38 PM


The Eternal Bloodletter
*

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



At this point I'm just gonna say that I think JonathanC brings very valid reflections regarding the 'background' of Daemons crossing over between Fantasy and 40k. It's the same Daemons after all. I'm actually all in favor of the 'background' being similar, if not identical.

So - ironically enough - as JonathanC seems to grow more accostumed to the idea of the Ld9 Daemon Prince, I also find myself seeing the Ld8 Prince as rather 'supported by the fluff' as well. I want to stress here, as JonathanC does also, that it doesn't seem to be a strict question of 'right and wrong'. It's rather a case where we could go either way.

Good point about the 'scheming of the Lords of Change' as well. Stripping them of all sentience is taking the 'background' too far, no doubt. I went overboard with that one.

Regarding Be'lakor I guess it's up to TheRealVeon to retort whether he thinks these arguments [for the Ld10] holds water, as it were. I personally have absolutely no problem with what JonathanC is saying at this juncture - but then I probably won't ever field a Special Character, on top of which I am actually stupid enough not to understand what the 'big deal' is with whether Daemons have Ld9 or Ld10. In the infantry-heavy edition we're in currently it doesn't seem like +-1 wound is that big of deal tbh.

Well.. An excellent post JonathanC, as usual. Too bad you ran out of time and let's see if the others have time to reply over the night!

By the way
My main gripe with Daemonic Fluff is really the writing about Bloodletters being ex-mortal champions. That's the important fix here. Basically I want Bloodletters to be Khorne's version of Horrors, so to speak. Straight apparitions. Pure and simple.


--------------------
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 ... 99 100 [101] 102 103 ... Last »



Hosted for free by InvisionFree* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.2389 seconds | Archive