InvisionFree - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums

Learn More · Sign-up 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 ... 109 110 [111] 112 113 ... Last » ( Go to first unread post )

 Alternate 8th Edition DoC army book, The definitive Daemon re-write.
TheRealVeon
Posted: Mar 24 2012, 11:47 PM


Changebringer
*

Group: Members
Posts: 258
Member No.: 2,925
Joined: 28-August 11



I think if we worry about people who can't/won't understand that by any means means by any means, we'll be wasting our time and breath. There's always going to be someone like that, and hopefully their opponent or a judge will be there to look at the rule and say, 'no, you're full of it.' I'm all for well written rules and rule clarity, but I don't think we need to go with: "... can never join by any means, ever. Ever, ever. No, not even then. Just no. Don't even think about it."
Top
DaemonReign
Posted: Mar 25 2012, 09:14 AM


The Eternal Bloodletter
*

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



@ TheRealVeon:
Yeah I guess you're right. I suppose it's a vain ambition to try and 'cover every loop-hole' so that there wouldn't be an actual need for an Errata/FAQ at all.

But then.. Looking at our current FAQ (particularly the question about Siren Song and what happens if you use to two of them (!) on the same enemy unit) I suppose there'll always be people who manage turn stuff into riddles.

@ Lord Tremendous
We have not discussed Flails specifically in relation to Plaguebearers.
We have however discussed (and discarded) the idea of giving "mundane equipment" to Daemons. The subject of "mundane equipment" did come up in relation to the 'Legion Lords' (i.e. infantry Lord choices) what we discussed earlier, but it was eventually discarded even for them.
This can be argued back and forth of course, but there are a couple of defining characteristics of Daemons that we have chosen to 'keep':
- Army Wide 5+ Ward.
- Instability (immune to psychology with all the pro's and con's that brings).
- Magical Attacks.
- Gifts (but no Magic Items and no Mundane equipment)

Of course, the Great Unclean One does indeed have the "Flail" but he could be seen as the exception that proves the rule, and it's not an upgrade either but rather an 'innate' trait that is very fluff-driven seeing as the Designer was obviously just looking at the actual model while factoring in the low number of attacks the GuO has (i.e. how much he sucks in combat without the Balesword - especially in 7th when he didn't even have ThunderStomp).

One could of course argue that we've already crossed the line with the "BattleHardened" upgrade for Bloodletters. Certainly there'd be one or two non-Daemon players who'd start huffing and puffing about giving Daemons "Heavy Armour".
In our defense I'll just say that Khorne&Armour are pretty closely linked if you look at the Gift Section (Armour of Khorne, Obsidian Armour) and that we didn't name the upgrade for Bloodletters "Heavy Armour" but instead gave it a different description.

All that being said, Plaguebearers getting Strength 7 in the first round of combat would make a Horde of them hit as hard as Bloodknights do on the Charge. I'm not saying it would be impossible to give it a fair cost, but there would certainly be alot of contingencies involved there..

So I see where you're coming from, but I fear a suggestion like that would lean a little bit too heavily on the 'wishlisting' side of things. Sorry. smile.gif

****************************************************************************
EDIT
Just a question really.. Is this move of Bloodcrushers and Fiends to the Special Section sitting right with everybody?
'NotADaemon' is back in 'his own' thread and he aired some concerns about it as well. It's not just that, however, I'm feeling a but 'unfunny' about this latest change as well. Can't really put my finger on it. It's just I would never have dreamt to move Fiends/Crushers to Special if it hadn't been for the new stuff we've added.

So perhaps - and this is certainly not a fun prospect either - it's the additions of 3 Rare Slot monsters that is the problem??
I mean: Please say it ain't so! *lol*
... But it's been eating at me actually, and when NotAdaemon returned and raised caution about it (despite thinking fiends were 2+ unit size when we said 3+) I simply felt I had to bring it up again.
(?)


--------------------
Top
JonathanC
Posted: Mar 26 2012, 12:25 PM


Greater Daemon
*

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



I can't see the Plaguebearers getting flails, if only because it means a change in their established imagery and the weapon option would have to be incorporated in a new kit when the plastics come out (which is rumored to be not that far off).

As for moving the units to Special, well it does create some potential problems bu so does leaving them as Rare choices. The only way to be sure would be to field a Crusher and/or Fiend heavy army where you spend more than 25% of your points on just those units. Even if you did that it would mean not taking many other Special units so little or no Chariots, Furies, Seekers, etc, so the army would probably be low on chaff units.


--------------------
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 26 2012, 06:52 PM


The Eternal Bloodletter
*

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



That's all true JonathanC and it's good you're taking the time to post despite being at least as busy as I am atm because I feel a bit more reassured about it all now.

I guess I've just been getting a bit of 'cold feet' about these 3 Rare Slot monsters we've added. They took some flak from Talonz, and then I started thinking about how VC got that that MI-kit just recently. Now Daemons don't actually have Monstrous Infantry either. It's like this big 'venue' of possibilities that we've been edging near a couple of times (specifically with regards to the Daemon Prince - where the (again) Talonz argued for making him a Monstrous Infantry type Character and we ultimately discarded that idea in part because he'd have no MI-unit to join in that case).

Back in the ignorant beginnings of this thread I was bringing up ideas for 'new units' where ONE suggestion was these "Brawlers of Khorne" that would essentially have been MI-type 'Bloodletteresque' and possibly frenzied models. The whole idea of adding such units was discarded when Kitsune brought forth the idea of adding various upgrades to the already existing units.

Looking (for example) at a unit like the Phantasm it could be imagined quite easily (in a 'nerfed' incarnation of course) as an MI Special unit. But then turning that argument around that's exactly what we get *viola* by moving Fiends to Special and giving them MinUnitSize 3+.

Like you say, it will come down to PlayTesting. I reckon that's something I will be particularly suited for carrying out actually, seeing as I actually have a Horde of both Fiends and Bloodcrushers that I (naturally) have never had any real opportunity to field before (and before you ask: Yes JonathanC the only 'true test' is to field them all in ONE unit *lol*)

Joking of course.
I actually think Crushers and Fiends are "fine" in the Special Section concidering the new Minimum Unitsizes we've given them - I guess my only worry is that a GW rep will be going *wtf* when seeing the move to Special.. I mean for someone who hasn't followed this thread at all it might seem like a kneejerk move. I don't know.

And yeah any day now I'm bound to wake up really early so that I get an afternoon by myself with RealVeon's PDF. The hilarious thing is that I've spent so much time talking to you guys that now when my wife comes home she basically won't allow me to sit at the computer.. I mean to be fair, she's right: I overdo things whenever anything catches my interest.

And it's peculiar that NotADaemon thought the HoK could take Spellbreaker if that wasn't listed in the PDF. But good you checked it in any case.


--------------------
Top
DaemonReign
Posted: Mar 27 2012, 12:04 PM


The Eternal Bloodletter
*

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



Sitting here trying to be of any use proof-reading the latest version of the PDF (the one with pics, if that matters at all).

1 - p.13 (Skarbrand Bestiary Entry)
This is really a pet-peeve but toward the end of the 'fluff-text' there's this sentence:
However, his hoped for reconciliation will never
come, for in his desperate exile, Skarbrand spills far more blood
than he ever did while in Khorne’s favour.


I just think with so much beautifully written text it's a shame to let this inconsequential (?) sentence slip by us. Sorry RealVeon if this feels like I'm just nitpicking, but I really didn't catch anything else up to this point. And btw I love what you did with the Juggernaut Bestiary Entry, that's awesome!!

2 - p25 Bestiary Entry for Epidemius
This is a question with respect to the Tally. The '35+' result says that all Nurgle Daemons get +1 ToWound to a maximum of 2+.
I know that's what we said before, so this is not actually 'incorrect' compared to what it says on page 1.. but with the ways other units get to wound 'automatically' (if wounding normally on 2+ and getting an additional +1 ontop of that) I really think we should remove the 'to a maximum of 2+'-bit.

I have a vague memory of bringing this up before. Was anyone (JonathanC?) against it, or was it just lost in the haze of other things being discussed at the time?

By the way: It's just such a freaking joy to be reading this pdf RealVeon. I am forever humbled by the work you've put in here. This last edit doesn't seem to have any real 'errors' (at least not as far as I've come right now) - you even added the "Aura of Nurgle" for Beasts of Nurgle which was something I worried you'd missed actually.. wink.gif
All those Fluff-texts you've written are just amazing. It really reads like an army book.

3 - p28 Bestiary Entry for Herald of Slaanesh
Here I go nitpicking again but the part that states that the Herald of Slaanesh may be a wizard of the Daemon Lore of Slaanesh sort of crosses over the two halves of the page.. So this is just an aesthethic remark really.. I think if the "picture" is moved to the other half of the page the 'problem' will be fixed.

I have been checking all "cross reference" thus far in the PDF (With respect to the magic lores) and they are all correct!! smile.gif

4 - p41 Burning Chariot Bestiary Entry
Perhaps a non-issue, but the Bestiary Entry for the Burning Chariot does not mention (at all) the fact that you may swap the Horror-crew for 2 Flamers. (?)

p44 - Bestiary Entry for Eye of Tzeentch
Hey that's awesome! You made a pic for that one! *lol*

p45 - Bestiary Entry for Kairos
There's a simple spelling mistake in the description of how Kairos chooses spells:
They do no roll normally for spells. Th e left head
chooses any four spells from the Lores of Life, Metal, Light
and Heavens.

Also: The "title" 'DAEMONIC GIFTS' and the actual listed Gifts are separated between the two halves of the page, which again is just an aesthethic remark.

General Question:
In the Bestiary "Daemonic Gifts" are listed in the same way regardless of whether the Daemon in question has these Gifts "innately" or has to pay points for them as "upgrades". I am sure this is just me being an idiot.. But I just wanted to make a note of it.. This is all as it should be, right? smile.gif

That's as far as I have got time to take my 'proof-reading' today I'm afraid. My khornated wife just got back from work wielding the usual whip.

I'll just finnish off by saying that these PDF-pages are looking mighty fine already. We could probably print them out already and use them for playtesting really, but in a few days time I should have gotten time to read through the whole document (and perhaps JonathanC will also find the time).

Again: Awesome work RealVeon. Just plain awesome.

EDIT
p 57 (Nurgle Daemonic Gifts)
Aura of Nurgle - it says that regen is increase by 1+, which really can't be misunderstood (I know), but it should say '+1'..


--------------------
Top
TheRealVeon
Posted: Mar 27 2012, 12:16 PM


Changebringer
*

Group: Members
Posts: 258
Member No.: 2,925
Joined: 28-August 11



Most of the fluff hasn't been finalize (or proofread) so any formatting is in flux for the moment. So don't worry about stuff like that too much, I am planning of fixing all of that so that it looks nice. Also, if anything can be purchased as an upgrade, it is always (or at least it should always be) listed in a separate box on the bestiary page. Innate gifts or special rules that aren't bought are just listed outright.

That's for checking everything!
Top
DaemonReign
Posted: Mar 27 2012, 06:51 PM


The Eternal Bloodletter
*

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



All right I shall stop 'nit-picking' over details in the fluff-texts then. I just couldn't help myself becuase it was immense fun reading them.

Concidering how the Daemonic Gifts are listed in the Bestiary Section I'll check back on that bit tomorrow. You may be right that they are listed 'consistently' already (i.e. 'upgrade-Gifts' inside the Box, 'innate-Gifts' outside the Box) but I think there might be one or two that are in the 'wrong' place. Well, I guess you're checking this yourself at this point too.

One thing I forgot to look at specifically (because I didn't make it that far earlier today) was the issue I brought up before about Icon-allocation for the Battle Standard Bearer. Last time I looked (and I also commented on this) it still had the "old" mechanic whereby the BSB Herald always had free access to "unit Icons" of corresponding Mark.
Later on in the discussion these "unit icons" were lumped together with the "5th Marked BSB Icon" [as argued by JonathanC] and I just bring it up 'cause you never confirmed/mentioned when I noted this the last time around (or I missed that confirmation).

*****************************************************************************
EDIT
Today I decided to have a detailed look on the Magic Lores listed in the PDF. I just finnished reading the page on the Lore of Nurgle and I actually couldn't find a single thing that was incorrect.

Daemon Lore Of Slaanesh

When it comes to the Slaanesh Lore, we have that Attribute "Whispers of Seduction" that mentiones "Dark Elf Assassins", and I think we should replace the mentioning of Dark Elf Assassins with some other "hidden" unit from one of the 8th Edition books. The unit that comes to mind are the Nasty Skulkers from the OnG Book.
This is simply a precaution. I think it is highly unlikely that a "new DE Book" would revamp Assassins to the point where they are not "hidden" anymore, but still - the OnG book is 100% certain to have those Skulkers while we can only assume that Dark Elves will continue to do so.

Cursed Caress - I'll paste the relevant passage:
If this attack hits, it causes D3 wounds with no armour saves.
-- I think we should add the word 'allowed' at the end of that sentence.

Pavane of Slaanesh -
The target model rolls 3D6 and subtracts their unmodified Leadership value. They then roll that many dice and take a wound on a 2+ with no armour saves
allowed.

-- Should probably read something like: The target rolls 3D6 and for each point the result of this roll exceeds the target's unmodified Leadership value it must roll a D6 taking a wound on 2+ allowing no Armour Saves

Phantasmagoria -
The wording seems fine to me, but it should say somewhere that the effect is "to the start of the Caster's next Magic Phase". Right now the duration is simply unspecified.

Daemon Lore Of Tzeentch

Boon of Tzeentch -
(I paste the current wording and add my 'changes' in bold/underscore)
Boon of Tzeentch is an augment spell which targets the casting wizard. Add D3+1 Power Dice to the Power Pool which only the casting Wizard can use.
The Wizard may choose to boost this spell and add D3+1 Power Dice to the Power Pool which any friendly wizard can use. If it does so, increase the casting value to 9+.


Glean Magic -
Glean Magic is a hex spell which targets an enemy Wizard within 24". If successfully cast you may choose any one of the target’s spells; you immediately cast the unboosted version of that spell (without rolling any additional dice). No dispel attempts may be made against a spell being cast in this way.

Mealstrom of Change -
(Just some clean-up of the wording!)
Once the template is placed, the player nominates the direction the in which the Maelstrom will travel and it goes 4D6".
Should be:
Once the template is placed it moves 4D6" in a direction chosen by the casting player.

- Or just remove the superflous 'the' in your original wording and I guess that will work just as well. *lol*

*That's all I could find worth fixing for the Magic Lores!* smile.gif

**************************************************************************
EDIT
I also double-checked those Upgrade-boxes and you were right RealVeon: All the Gifts that are "upgrades" are listed 'inside' the "upgrade-Box" whereas all the 'innate' Gifts are listed outside that Box. So that's all good!

***************************************************************************
EDIT
Looking at the Gift Section a little bit (I'll see how far I get today..)

Spectral Distortion -
Warmachines may not fire on this Daemon or its unit unless they fi rst roll a 4+.
Should be:
Warmachines wishing to fire on the Daemon or its unit must first roll a 4+ on a D6 lest they not be allowed to fire at all this turn.

Winged Horror -
*This Gift has been removed.*

Balesword -
Does the Balesword allow armour saves?! I thought it didn't but I don't have the book here to check. (?)

*the rest of the Gifts look good. I already mentioned "Aura of Nurgle" yesterday (the 1+/+1 issue) and for that specific Gift there's also a little error in the fluff-text where I think you've written "think" instead of "thick" - but yeah you told me not to pay attention to such things! smile.gif


--------------------
Top
DaemonReign
Posted: Mar 29 2012, 11:18 AM


The Eternal Bloodletter
*

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



All right I'm making a new post now despite simply continuing the same kind of "editing" updating that I was doing in my previous post. It just gets unweildy with ten different edits of the same post, this way TheRealVeon will know exactly what's 'new' and 'old'.
Continuing with the Slaanesh Section of Gifts:

Spirit Swallower:
This includes wounds caused
simultaneously with the Daemon’s own attacks (eg. when
facing an opponent with Always Strikes First).

-- So here I think we should basically *remove* those (brackets). The Keeper of Secrets no longer have ASF as an "innate" trait and thus it's not for certain that it would strike at the same time as an opponant with ASF. Simply saying that "This includes wounds suffered in the same inititative-step as the Daemon's own attacks." will cover this issue more clearly.

Aura of Slaanesh:
It should be added that while the Aura of Slaanesh 'stacks' with any other penalties to Leadership, it does not 'stack' with other "Auras of Slaanesh".

Enrapturing Gaze:
However, they still use the general’s Leadership if he is in the unit.
This sentence ought probably be changed to:
However, they may still use the highest Leadership value present in the unit as normal. - As this implicitly includes the General should he be located in that given unit.

TZEENTCH GIFTS
Spelldestroyer:
I would add that the spell is 'permanently lost on a 4+ roll. But I guess it's no big deal.

DAEMONIC ICONS
At the top of page 60 in the PDF where the general guidelines for Daemonic Icons are listed we still have the issue of 'allocation' for the Battle Standard Bearer. This part still reads as the BSB being free to take the "universal Battle Standards" as well as any of the four basic "unit icons".
Again: After JonathanC's adamant opinion on this issue we decided that the Marked Unit Icons and the 5th BSB flag would be 'bundled' together. So, in essence, the Battle Standard Bearer only gets access to the "unit Icons" if the General is of corresponding mark.

*Couldn't find anything else to complain about in the Icon Section!*

******************************************************************
p.71 - Be sure to remove the "Winged Horror" Gift from the list of Gifts available to the Herald of Tzeentch. wink.gif
p73 - The Army List entry for Pink Horrors has an incorrect cross-reference(!), it says that the Pink horror magic chart is on page 22 (but that's the Bestiary Page for PoxRiders). *phew* I finally managed to find one of those faulty cross-references ey!! biggrin.gif
p74 - The Bloodcrusher entry is funny.. Bloodletters and Bloodreapers are listed as "Monstrous Cavalry" while the Juggernaut itself is only listed with a " - " (?) Is this the way it's supposed to read?

*******************************************************************
I went through the rest of the Army List entries without finding anything else that was incorrect.

What's left now is - I guess - to go through ALL the cross-referenced page-numbers in the summary. I will have to return to that later.

Some mighty find work you've put in here RealVeon. It will be such a blast to print it out in a hard copy!!


--------------------
Top
JonathanC
Posted: Mar 29 2012, 08:41 PM


Greater Daemon
*

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



Just to let you know I am in the middle of reviewing the pdf in detail. I'm up to magic so far and will post my findings when I am finished (hopefully tomorrow) in either one long or a series of shorter posts.

Just to comment on one or two of the things D-Reign bought up, I don't think the Enrapturing Gaze issue is one to worry about, while for Spirit Swallower simply removing the brackets will be sufficient, but could be changed to initiative step instead if you want an example of "simultaneous". The Bloodcrusher mounts having "-" for their unit type is standard I believe. Also I agree naturally about the icon selection.

Epidemius - I think its important to keep it as max 2+, otherwise all you need to do is have an HoT cast a boosted soulblight spell and suddenly all Plaguebearers are wounding T3 opponents automatically. A potential there to be really nasty if timed right that probably out to be kept in check somewhat.

I have some comments on what DaemonReign has said on magic, but will leave it until I have reviewed that section properly.


--------------------
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 29 2012, 08:53 PM


The Eternal Bloodletter
*

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



QUOTE (JonathanC @ Mar 29 2012, 08:41 PM)
Epidemius - I think its important to keep it as max 2+, otherwise all you need to do is have an HoT cast a boosted soulblight spell and suddenly all Plaguebearers are wounding T3 opponents automatically.  A potential there to be really nasty if timed right that probably out to be kept in check somewhat.


**************************************************************************
I actually wrote everything beneath prior to making this little edit, but once I thought of this I figured it might as well start off my post:
Assuming you're playing a Game with Epidemius and you've scored 35+ Poison Wounds versus an enemy consisting mostly of T3 troops - haven't you kind of Won already?
**************************************************************************

I really think you're worrying to much about this.

1 - You need to score 35+ Poison Wounds in one game.
2 - Epidemius needs to still be alive.
3 - You HoT needs to still be alive.
4 - Your HoT needs to cast that one spell, boosted without the opponant managing to dispel it.

It would be nasty in theory. Absolutely. But I simply don't find it likely enough [to ever actually happen] for us to go against the precedence of how 8th Edition 'deals' with similar issues.

By comparison: All you need is one simple casting of those Enchanted Blades (Lore of Fire?) and Bloodletters start 'autowounding' all T3 enemies.

If you compare the two, and concider that my example is already hard fact as far as rules go - I just don't think that 'cap' for Epidemius final level of Tally is something to worry about.

***************

The rest sounds great. I was counting on your of course to come along and 'correct' my corrections. biggrin.gif

All though I certainly hope my posts over the last two days have been of some use.

**************************************************************************
EDIT
*continued about that measly 35+ 'result' for the Tally of Pestilence:

I mentioned that Lore of Fire Augment (I forget the name - Enchanted Blades of Something) that grants a +1 ToWound. On Bloodletters vs T3 troops that means 'autowounding'.
So - and not to have a go at this specific issue like it's the end of the world but still, I'm bored at work so humour me smile.gif - what are you suggesting here? That Bloodletters will be able to 'autowound' T3 targets by the means of a single Augment, while Plaguebearers will never (ever!) be able to 'autowound' in the same way regardless of what you do.. (?)
Assuming we cap that 35+ result at 2+ as a definate hardcap, you'd end up with the possibility of casting Enchanting Blades and Boosted Soulblight - which would allow them to autowound. But do the same thing with the 35+ Tally-effect in play and you still fail to wound on any rolled 1's?

Granted; I'm probably being stupid in my above example. But it's really just meant to illustrate the point (once more) that I basically don't exactly understand what the big deal is.
The bottom line of course being that scoring 35+ Poison Wounds is no easy feat all by itself - and I guess I'm saying that if you pull that off and have a HoT ready to cast Soulblight then, well, good for you. smile.gif

All right, this is probably two or three more paragraphs of blabbering than we really need on this subject. I don't know if it did anything to change your view on the matter - because to me it seems that we would stipulate a clear ruling against the precedence of 8th Ed FAQ/Errata and for what exactly.?

Please don't be annoyed at me with this subject JonathanC. Factor in while reading this post I am partly killing time friday morning at work. biggrin.gif
My question is sincere though: Are we not eering a little bit too far on the side of caution with this 2+ cap? Especially seeing as anything in the entire Game with S5 or higher gets those 'autowounds' with the casting of a single Augment?


--------------------
Top
TheRealVeon
Posted: Mar 30 2012, 12:13 AM


Changebringer
*

Group: Members
Posts: 258
Member No.: 2,925
Joined: 28-August 11



Thanks for all the input.

As for the icons, I thought we decided to keep it the way it is in the pdf now. I'm okay with having it the way you two are suggesting, but I still think that it's weird that a Bloodletter standard bearer (whose only claim to fame is that he holds the standard) can chose from Khorne's icons, but a Herald of Khorne cannot unless the general is also Khornate. Anyway, that's my reasoning for keeping it the way it's currently listed, but if both of you say no, then change is good.
Top
DaemonReign
Posted: Mar 30 2012, 01:02 AM


The Eternal Bloodletter
*

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



QUOTE (TheRealVeon @ Mar 30 2012, 12:13 AM)
I still think that it's weird that a Bloodletter standard bearer (whose only claim to fame is that he holds the standard) can chose from Khorne's icons, but a Herald of Khorne cannot unless the general is also Khornate.

I agree with this 1000% RealVeon.

I always did. This is one of those issues (there's been a few) where I've personally conceded to JonathanC preferences simply out of respect or - more to the point - because I acknowledge (humble as I am) that JonathanC has what I would like to call a more 'astute sense' of balance (etcetera) as far as 'Designing Stuff' goes.

That being said: I agree wholeheartedly with what you're saying here. It would definately be my intuitive 'design of choice' for the allocation of these Icons to the Battle Standard Bearer.

Just like you, also, I don't feel too strongly about it either. It's more this feeling of 'wierdness' that you describe - whereby I can't say I really understand where JonathanC is coming from with this one. He'll have to speak for himself, of course, but what I remember is basically him saying that it would be 'wrong' for (as an example) Nurgle troops to benefit from a Khorne Marked BSB (the 'implicit' fault being that the General wouldn't have to be of corresponding Mark).

Back when we last discussed this, my counter argument was basically that those Nurgle Daemons wouldn't benefit any more (or less) from a BSB of different Mark (the Hold Your Ground re-rolls are unaffected after all), and all these Unit Icons we're discussing (as well as indeed the 5th Marked BSB's) all have in common that they effect the 'carrying unit' specifically. None of them have bubble-effects or 'general' effects like most of the "Universal BSB Icons".
edit - the only important difference is that the 5th Marked BSB's are simply alot more 'grand' in terms of their effect.

What could be argued, but JonathanC did not seem to come from that angle, is that certain Unit Icons in the hands of a Herald will come into different uses. For example one of the Khorne Icons would grant "PermaHatred" to a Horde of Bloodletters if carried by a Herald of Khorne Battle Standard Bearer - normally that Icon can only be chosen by the Standard Bearer of a Bloodcrusher unit (so here, for example, one could argue that the restriction JonathanC is in favor of would prevent possible 'cheese', or at least penalize such 'cheese' a little bit by forcing you to have a Khorne General).

But the peculiar thing is that JonathanC never said this.

Bottom line, then, comes right back to me feeling just like you do RealVeon, but that I am prepared to go JonathanC's way simply out of trust or respect or whatever you want to call it.

Same thing with the 2+ cap on that 35+ 'effect' of the Tally of Pestilence. I've already stated at quite some length how I just don't see what JonathanC is worried about, but if he keeps being adamant on this issue I'll ultimately concede the point (in this case partly because I'll never actually field Epidemius or any other Special/Named Character).

Gotta get some sleep now. Over and out! smile.gif


--------------------
Top
JonathanC
Posted: Mar 30 2012, 05:04 PM


Greater Daemon
*

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



I don't want to spend ages going into detail on this as I want to finish reviewing the pdf, but to respond to your points about Epidemius:

1) Its not POISON wounds that are counted, its all wounds caused by Nurgle Daemons (including magic), so reaching that total isn't as hard as you think, particularly in the infantry-dominated armies of this edition.
2) Not difficult to accomplish, he is T6 with regen (which improves with the tally)and can hide in a small bunker of Plaguebearers.
3) Not too hard either for similar reasons to above. Stick him in a unit of 10 Horrors behind your army and he's pretty safe.
4) That is the hardest part of course, but at 18+ to cast its not the most difficult to accomplish either (there maybe other spells which are just as good for this but Soulblight was the one that sprang to mind as doing the job most efficiently).

As to the point of "if you have killed 35 models, surely you've won already," well against Elves or Daemons that may be true, but for Skaven, Goblins, Undead and some Empire armies that's barely a drop in the ocean.

Btw, the spell you are thinking of was Flaming Swords, not Enchanted Blades. The difference here is Flaming Swords can only effect one unit at a time, not several like Soulblight could. (As an aside, I don't like that this breaks the usual convention on 1 always fails and 6 always succeeds, and for that reason I believe its an unintended consequence of a RAW application than something that was intended purposefully. However this is, of course, just my opinion.)

As for the Icons, its because I think an BSB icon in a mixed army shouldn't be partisan when its supposed to represent the Chaos Pantheon united. I agreed to the General and BSB being the same mark to allow a marked icon becuase that was easier than saying the whole army had to be mono-God (which would have meant they were hardly ever used imo). Personally I don't really see the need for special BSB icons for each God at all, but since everyone else is either positive or neutral on this issue I've decided to go along with it.

QUOTE: DaemonReign
What could be argued, but JonathanC did not seem to come from that angle, is that certain Unit Icons in the hands of a Herald will come into different uses. For example one of the Khorne Icons would grant "PermaHatred" to a Horde of Bloodletters if carried by a Herald of Khorne Battle Standard Bearer - normally that Icon can only be chosen by the Standard Bearer of a Bloodcrusher unit (so here, for example, one could argue that the restriction JonathanC is in favor of would prevent possible 'cheese', or at least penalize such 'cheese' a little bit by forcing you to have a Khorne General).

But the peculiar thing is that JonathanC never said this.


Reason I didn't argue this was I haven't looked at the possible combinations in detail (I was leaving that until more stuff was finalised and I started list building) and because it really makes little difference as you'd be able to do it anyway, you'd just have to have a general that followed the same god (which I suppose would at least prevent having a lvl4 LoC or DP buffing your Bloodletters with charge bonus and permahatred icons in smaller games).


--------------------
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 30 2012, 05:39 PM


The Eternal Bloodletter
*

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



Ok so it's 35+ 'wounds' (i.e. not merely 'poison wounds').
That changes the perspective. A lot.
... and evidently I was indeed being in idiot, just as I thought.

So we keep the 2+ maximum for the 35+ result of the Tally.
The only 'problem' I see is the following:
Assume you have Plaguebearers fighting T3 troops.
You manage to cast Boosted Soulblight and Flaming Sword.
Result: They would 'autowound'. (Right?)
Do the same thing while having scored 35+ wounds with Epidemius in the game and that 'hardcap' of 2+ becomes *confusing*. (?)
I know this is a highly theorethical scenario: But wouldn't the Tally in essence make the PB's in this example worse?

In any case - since I somehow started thinking the Tally was based on 'poison wounds' (not merely wounds caused by Nurgle Daemons) I concider myself corrected on this issue.

As for the Icon Allocation:
Since JonathanC's suggested set-up is really only an amplification of the 'positive incentive' [for themed lists] that we're shooting for with the '5th BSB Icons' I'm actually 'ok' with the idea.

In a list where your BSB and General are of a different Mark you get the Universal Battle Standards, period.
If you - on the other hand - are prepared to 'limit' yourself by aligning the Mark of your Battle Standard Bearer and your General you get 'the whole package' of extra choices (i.e. all the Universal Icons, the 5th Icon of that God, and any Unit-Icon not already taken by a unit in your army).

I'm all good with this, at this point. smile.gif

***************************************************************************
EDIT
... Or actually *lol* that 'hardcap' of 2+ is still not sitting quite right with me I'm afraid. If it is a concern that you'd be able to 'autowound' T3 enemies too easily then I suggest doing something 'else' to fix this problem.

The original Tally was created for 7th Edition (no supporting attacks, no stepping up) and basically one single unit of Plaguebearers in 8th Ed are likely to score as many wounds over the course of a game as you were likely to score with your entire army in a 7th Game. I'm 100% with JonathanC thus far in his reasoning.

I also agree essentially about the 'autowounding' business. I was just as baffled as JonathanC when it comes to that 'ruling'. Rolls always failing on a '1' was something I concidered almost holy writ in Warhammer. To assert, however, that GW made this ruling 'by mistake' or somehow unintentionally seems to be assuming a lot - given that the relevant FAQ-entry is pretty damn clear, to say the least.

That being said: Why don't we just inflate the Tally? Instead of the steps: 0-6, 7-13, 14-20, 21-27, 28-34, 35+
We could make the 'step' 8 or 10 'digits' rather than the present 6.
Or we could keep the steps of '6' but indeed make it about 'Poison Wounds' rather than just 'Nurgle Daemon Wounds' in general.

Because regardless of our private opinions on ToWound rolls sometimes succeeding on the roll of a '1' that is RAW now.

I'm still ok with your suggested 'Icon Allocation' for the BSB though, JonathanC. wink.gif


--------------------
Top
JonathanC
Posted: Mar 31 2012, 06:51 PM


Greater Daemon
*

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



Well the reasons it goes up in 7's is becuase that's Nurgle's sacred number of course. I'm sure there must be other examples of hard caps like this in the game, although the only one that springs to mind right now is the regen bonuses provided by the VC Mortis Engine (which caps at 4+ regen), whereas the only example I can think of someone wounding on a 1+ is when Flaming Swords is cast on a unit. I don't think counting poison wounds would work as its a bit harder to remember to keep track of them, and you may as well not bother having a 35+ result as you'd so rarely get there. The alternative is probably just to come up with a different result for 35+.

Anyway, we'll wait to see what RealVeon (or anyone else) thinks about this.

Still not finished fully reviewing the pdf but thought I would post up what I have found so far to be going on with. I realise RealVeon said the background is still in flux at this point, but I read it all anyway and thought some of my comments might help him when he comes to doing his next lot of edits. smile.gif

P3) Daemonic Rivalry – Should be incorporated as a general Daemon rule under the “Daemon Special Rules” heading like Instability and magical attacks. There would then be no need to list it as a special rule in the Bestiary/Army list. Also I feel the colour text should be altered a bit to put a different emphasis on it. This is what I came up with:
While the Chaos Gods will often ally together for a greater purpose, such alliances are always temporary and rival Daemons inherently distrust one another and keep a watchful eye on their erstwhile allies, suspicious of their true motives. To represent this, Daemons may only benefit from the Inspiring Presence of a general that is either unaligned, or one that serves the same God as itself. Unaligned Daemons (such as Furies) can benefit from a general’s Inspiring Presence regardless of which Chaos power it is devoted to.
This also incorporates un-marked DP’s into the list of units that can use a General’s Ld.

P5) “Bloodthristers” spelling mistake 2nd to last line of colour text.

P6) 1st para: possibly should say “created” instead of “designed” and definitely should say “role” instead of “roll”.
3rd para: “paroxplism” – is that a real word? (not recognised by spellchecker). Next sentence, “Bloddletters” spelling mistake, and “fare” when it should be “far”.

P9) 1st para: replace “deaths” with “death”?
Brass Behemoth: should say “making it nearly impossible”.

P11) Daemon Chains – at the moment this reads as if the Wizard’s controlling player rolls the D6, when it should ideally be the Skullshrine’s controlling player.

P12) Last sentence of colour text: says “such as position” when should say “such a position”. Also same problem as p9 with Brass Behemoth wording.

P13) 2nd para: dragging has two g’s. Also I think “Khorne exiled Skarbrand by throwing him from the tallest tower….” sounds a bit better.
3rd para: “crater” makes more sense here than “canyon”.
4th para: “any more” rather than “any longer” perhaps?
Bellow of Endless Fury: I think “pulverise” would sound better than “incinerate” here.
Rage Embodied: perhaps should say “….have the Frenzy Special Rule.”
The Axes: modify to say they ”….contain the essence of two Greater Daemons….”

P14) Skulltaker should have Heroic killing blow as standard, which takes effect on a 5+ if fighting in a challenge.

P15) 4th para: should be “deed is done” not “dead is done”.
Bloodhowl: use a different word to “embolden” as it doesn’t feel right to me (or fit with the background for Hounds in their section), “encourage” perhaps.
Prey of the Blood God: says “preform” when it should say “perform”.

P16) 3rd para: says “sickly green sick covered in boils and ruptures.” Should perhaps be “sickly green flesh covered….” instead.

P17) 2nd para; 1st sentence: should be “flee” and not “flea”.
3rd para: given the descriptions of Juggers and many other Daemons have them at nearly twice the height of a man, 2 to 3 times the height for GUO’s doesn’t sound enough.

P18) 3rd para: Last sentence should read “All that he once was is swept away so that the only thing remaining is his devotion and love of Nurgle.”

P20) Last para: should say “drawn” and not “draw” and “pestilence” instead of “pestilent”.

P21) 1st para: should be “Nurglings are the smallest….”

P24) 3rd para, last sentence: I think “….far and wide, therefore making him the Greater Daemon of Nurgle most likely to travel….” reads a bit better.

P26) Last para: says “preform” when it should say “perform”.

P31) Upgrades: “Ascended” doesn’t need to be listed here as it’s an upgrade more suited to the army list entry (where it should be: “add up to 2 extra Steeds at +10pts each”).

P33) Thrasher: should say “….may re-roll the dice to determine the number of Thunderstomp attacks it makes.”

P35) I’d like it if the background for Revelation of Dark Desires and the Unholy Spear is altered as while it isn’t bad it doesn’t reflect what I was thinking when I came up with them.

Revelation of Darkest Desires: To look upon N’Kari’ is to look at the darkness within oneself made real. Many are overcome by this and in their shame and fury lash out as the truth of their most depraved thoughts is revealed to themselves.

The Unholy Spear: With a haft made from the thigh bones of a Bloodthirster N’Kari defeated in personal combat, this weapon retains some of the bloodlust of the Daemon it came from.

P36) Masque often referred to as “his” in her rules section. Also minor rules change for Pageant of Pain needed along these lines: “All enemy units within range take D3 hits, each causing a wound with no armour saves allowed on a roll of 4+ (roll once per unit).” (Note that this is a rules change I’m recommending, rather than a mistake I picked up, so I guess it should be discussed a bit first).

P38) Universal Loremaster: I’ve said it before, but if we’re going to include this it should just be listed as “Daemonic Gifts: Loremaster” rather than having a special rule that duplicates the txt of a gift.

P40) Windcatchers: should say “….may attempt to channel ONE Power Dice per MAGIC level….”

P43) 2nd para: says “expandible” instead of “expendable”.
Immolators: misspelling of “performing” again.

P44) “Disastrous” has been misspelt. I assume you haven’t finished writing the bestiary section here as it definitely needs some more. Here’s what I wrote earlier if you don’t have it already:
These remote eyes for the ‘Wizard of Wizards’ himself are named for their huge eye, which is set within a giant star of chaos made of some unknown metal. It usually travels sedately across the battlefield in an upright position, but when it moves into attack the star of chaos moves around the Eye into an angled position and begins to rotate, the points of the star acting as blades that slice and dismember the foe as they spin faster and faster. At these times the Eye changes colour, and sometimes has patterns or flames rippling across it. Those who see the Eye change in this manner would be wise to take this as a warning and flee whilst they still can.
Not perfect but you should be able to take the key points from it and add them to what you have already.

P46) Last para: says “moral realm” when it should be “mortal realm”.
Eternal Travellers: should be “not” or “no” instead of “nor”.

P47) Arch Imposter: “where ever” should be “wherever”.

P49) 1st para: “preform” spelling mistake again!

P51) Needs a bit more fluff at the end to explain how he has been released from his servitude/his old bonds have been broken and he is free to lead the Daemonic Hosts once more in preparation for the end times (or something to that effect). Also, like Kairos, his special magic selection rules would be much better described in his bestiary entry rather than in the army list like they are now.

I'll be back later with notes on magic, gifts, etc.

Also, I'm planning to construct a mock-up of an Eye of Tzeentch with fully rotating blades. I'll post up pics when its done. 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
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 ... 109 110 [111] 112 113 ... 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: 0.2404 seconds | Archive