Alternate 8th Edition DoC army book, The definitive Daemon re-write.

Wow, that's a lot of editing.

Again, I'd like to emphasize that when I write, I just throw a bunch of words on the page to fill the available space and then go back through and edit everything so that it's nice and pretty. So all the fluff hasn't even been read through once (I like to get it all done first and then go back through with fresh eyes). That's why the full-page fluff stops about halfway through; that's as far as I got. So don't feel obligated to proofread that stuff for me; I am going to go through it myself and fix it up.

One thing I did notice though:

Skulltaker currently doesn't have Heroic Killing Blow on his base profile. He only get's it in a challenge. That's why it's written the way it is now. And that's what it says on page 1.

Actually he doesn't have Heroic Killing Blow since the rule didn't exist in 7th, but the effect is the same.

Yeah I'd say either we 'let go' of that hardcap of 2+ or we go back to the drawing board for the 35+ 'result'.

I'd personally prefer 'inflating' the Tally but if 7 is a strongly associated 'number' then fine. I don't think counting 'Poison Wounds' would represent worse book-keeping compared to counting Nurgle Wounds - you'd arguably need a pen and paper either way, so to speak. It is true of course that reaching 35+ 'Poison Wounds' represents the equivalent of causing roughly 100+ 'normal wounds' so naturally that 'mechanic' would be quite a hard 'nerf' to the Tally.

But hey, if we went that way we could keep the rather good 'effects' of each effect in the Tally, and lower the base-cost of Epidemius to compensate (or even give him another Magic Level, or something else making him more dynamic otherwise).

I know this is like the most minute detail we could possibly get stuck on. It's kind of silly. But I just can't get over how wrong that hardcap of 2+ looks to me in this particular instance. On rare occassions ToWound rolls of '1' are successfull, for good or worse, just as ToWound rolls of '6' can be failures on other equally rare occassions.

Well as far as I am concerned this is just an awesome effort you've put in here. TheRealVeon keeps telling us not to bother about spelling mistakes in the 'colored' text - but, at any rate, these 'corrections' ought to make his job alot more swift and easy.

I'm all good with this change. Compared to page 1 it looks like you're trading 'No Saves of any kind'(?) for Multiple Wounds (D3) and the chance for the enemy to make use of Wardsaves against the damage. Feel free to stipulate your thinking behind this 'edit', should you feel up to it (I'd just like to hear whether it's a nerf or boost in your view, basically) but all-in-all I have no strong opinion on it and thus I will side with it.

Fine. It's just that having the 'Universal Loremaster' entry specifically granted us a natural venue to describe the background reason for adding this Gift. So to speak. Just writing 'Daemonic Gifts: Loremaster' may appear to an outsider as just a random 'buff' taken out of the air (when in fact it's a very important change that essentially closes the loop on the changes we've suggested to the current Gift 'Master of Sorcery').

So granted that is more 'correct' to simply write 'Daemonic Gifts: Loremaster' I just hope we can still have the 'color-text' on this issue in the LoC entry. I.e. the part about magic coming natural to the Lords of Change etcetera.

*The rest of the stuff are just excellent catches as far as I am concerned.

From page 1:
(The Entry on Skulltaker from the SC-section)
- Heroic Killing Blow Special Rule = Skulltaker has HKB (6+) and HKB (5+) in Challanges.

Admittedly this could have been worded better, but the 'intent' of this line of text was that Skulltaker indeed has HKB (6+) all the time while the ability is increased to 5+ in Challanges.

I fully understand how the fluff-text is a work-in-progress thing. The pointers JonathanC have provided ought to be good support still!

I will add JonathanC's new version of the Pageant of Pain to the increasingly obsolete page 1.

****************************************************************************
EDIT
I've been away from the computer a few hours and in my head this issue of the 35+ 'result' for the Epidemius Tally is still grinding.
Epidemius is a Special Character for crying out loud.
You can 'autowound' T3 opponants with Bloodletters by the simple casting of a single Augment.
While it is true that Soulblight (boosted 18+ version) might effect more than one unit let's remember what we actually concluded in the thread about Bloodletters autowounding via the 'Flaming Sword':
- While autowounding (succeeding on 1+, which is really what it is!) might sound extreme the actual difference is very marginal compared to wounding on 2+. The difference is not greater (or smaller) compared to wounding on 6+ or 5+. It's really '1' digit we're talking about, albeit at the extreme end of the possible spectrum.

So yeah that's what it comes down to for me - it just doesn't seem 'worth it' (at this juncture) to go in a head-on collision course with 'RAW-as-we-know-it' for an only marginal 'safety' against something that - in any case - will not be a common sighting in actual Games.

Even if people play with Special Characters and plan specifically for using Epidemius and working up 35+ wounds and then drop Boosted Soulblight - it's still eventually gonna be something that the opponant has at least a couple of turns to 'do something about'.
Kill Epidemius, kill the HoT in question, or hell, just drop Purple Sun/Pit of Shades in the middle of the Nurgle-oriented Army and the Tally can go suck it.

I know I'm a bloody hack compared to you JonathanC, in many ways. I can't keep track of numbers and I don't even remember correctly who wrote what Army Book for 8th Edition (!) *lol* ...
But with this one I just feel that I'm too right to really let it go. Please forgive me.

**************************************************************************
EDIT
It's a little early, of course, but looking at the Empire release at present it seems that most of the 'basic trends' of 8th Ed Army Books are being continued.
Stuff like moving Furies to Special seems very solid now that Flagelants are appearantly Special Choices.
Moving Fiends/Crushers to Special (as well as giving Crushers 3 wounds) also seem pretty much in line with MC units in these new books (while our units arn't 'new' naturally - which is probably why we shouldn't make them equally undercosted).
I guess we'll have to playtest our revised list vs this new Empire Book, but the general increase in cost of the Statetroops etcetera might be taken as a sign that we've been a little to lenient on the cost of our own Core Troops.
Then again, it seems Cruddace has factored in alot of 'outside' buffs in that cost increase though.
Oh well.. It's very early. Too early really to say anything definate. I just couldn't help "thinking out loud" seeing as there's a chaotic thread on Warseer where all sorts of crazy styff is happening..

Well all the info on the Empire is just rumors of course until the book actually comes out, but if State Troops have gone up it may be partly due to that "cold-blooded" type rule for Captains we have heard about making them more reliable. Cast your mind back and you may remember the cost of Orcs went up last time without them getting much better, and Ghouls went up while arguably getting worse. Maybe core troop costs are going up becuase massed infantry is pretty good right now, and also to make it easier to fill out the minimum 25% perhaps. Anyway, reading the new book will surely be interesting, I just hope it doesn't prompt us to make too many revisions to our work so far.

For the Pageant of Pain, it was never intended to ignore ward saves and if it seemed that way it wasn't worded properly, so the new change to it is just an improvement really to make it a more attractive option.

As for Epidemius, I'm gonna have to think about it.

RealVeon
Well you obviously have a very different way of working to me as even if I wasn't finished I'd still check eveything I had done up till that point, but you may have guessed thats the sort of person I am by now. Anyway, I hope it will be of some use to you when you come to finish off the rest of it.

Below are my review notes covering the rest of the pdf.

P52) Miasma: Second part, 1st sentence should probably read “The Wizard may choose to reduce all the previously listed Characteristics by D3 instead (roll once for all).”
Rancid Visitation: In the first part it should sat the Toughness tests are taken using the lowest value in the unit.
Blessing of Nurgle: maybe better if last part of 1st paragraph read “….cancel out and the unit makes To Wound rolls as normal.”

P53) Acquiescence: should be “Stupidity” and not “Stupid”.
Cursed Caress: needs a bit of tweaking as follows “- using and Special Rules it may have –“ and later on “D3 wounds with no armour saves allowed.”
Supreme Temptations: 1st sentence should read “…. the target is a friendly or an enemy unit, ….”
Pavane: second sentence should be “The target suffers a number of hits equal to 3D6 minus his unmodified Leadership value. Hits cause a wound on a roll of 2+, with no armour saves allowed.”
Phantasmagoria: as DaemonReign said, should have “until the start of the caster’s next magic phase” in there somewhere.

P54) Flickering Fire: should be a flaming attack.
Boon, Glean – agree with DaemonReign’s comments here.
Gift of Chaos: I thought the boosted version was supposed to be “roll once on the table for all units.” Just thinking that if you cast it twice in a turn with, say, 5 units in range that’s a lot of separate results to keep track of.
Maelstrom: remove the superfluous ‘the’.

P55) Immortal Fury and Enrapturing Gaze should be transferred to the Shared Gifts section.
Spectral Distortion: should have something to say they may not fire at all if the 4+ roll is failed. Also perhaps should be “War Machines and other shooting attacks that don’t use their BS to hit.”
Radiance of Dark Glory: maybe should be “The Daemon and any unit it has joined lose 1 less wound due to the instability rule.”

P56) Obsidian Armour: I think “…. decided by martial might alone.” reads better.
Axe of Khorne: we removed the “5+ KB for Heralds” bit in a later discussion.

P57) Nurgling Infestation: should say “… being born within the pus-filled sores… “
Blade of Entropy: we went back to the 50pt version that kills on a 4+ (this is on p1).
Aura of Nurgle: as DaemonReign said.

P58) Spirit Swallower: as DaemonReign said.
Temptator: should be 25pts.
Aura of Slaanesh: should have a note to say it doesn’t stack with itself.

P59) Warp Strength: needs to be amended to “… rest of the player turn.”

P60) Obviously we still have some issues to resolve around the access to marked BSB’s. If we go with treating all marked icons the same way a separate “Battle Standard Icons of the Gods” subsection won’t be needed.

P63) As mentioned previously, Be’Lakor’s special magic selection rules should be listed in his Bestiary entry rather than his army list entry, just like Kairos. Also, a bit picky perhaps but the model is armed with a sword so maybe “Barbed Sword (hand weapon)” would look better under equipment than just “Claws.”

P64) N’Kari: perhaps should have “Claws and Unholy Spear (hand weapon)” listed under his equipment in a similar manner to Ku’Gath.

P65) Skarbrand: should have his Axes of Slaughter & Carnage listed under equipment?
Daemon Prince: under the 1st list of options there should be a note to say that a DP can only take one Mark of Chaos.
A bit nit-picky perhaps, but I think the parenthesis in the two paragraphs under the DP entry should be phrased “(see pages 52-54)”.

P66) GUO: for his magic levels it might be better to say “May buy up to 3 additional magic levels for +35pts each.” As this is how it’s listed for Vampire Lords in their book. The same could be done for the Keeper and LoC too.

P67) Keeper: Temptator should be 25pts.

P69) Skulltaker: Should have Heroic Killing Blow as mentioned earlier. Also his chariot should cost 120pts.

P70) Herald of Khorne: Chariot should cost 120pts. Axe of Khorne should be removed as an option.

P71) Herald of Slaanesh: Chariot should cost 110pts and Temptator is missing as a gift option.
Herald of Tzeentch: Chariot should be 80pts.

P73) Pink Horrors: Magic page reference should be 40 not 22.

P75) Burning Chariot: under options, the additional Screamers should be “15pts each” rather than “15pts per model” because chariots are single-model units so it could be read as you get up to 2 for 15pts in total rather than paying 15pts for each additional Screamer.

P76) Flesh Hounds: They have the Aura of Khorne gift listed in error. Also Karanak option should be worded a bit more like the usual champion upgrade option, e.g. “One Flesh Hound unit in the army may upgrade one model to Karanak as a unit Champion.”

P76&15) Karanak should have “Devastating Charge” listed under his special rules.

P77) Seeker Chariot: replace ‘Ascended’ with “May take up to 2 additional Steeds …. 10pts each”.

P81) Summary: While I can see why you would want the colours in the summary to match those of the army list, I think it would look better if it was in the two-tone scheme that other army books use.

I don't think any of these are changes to what we have done before apart from maybe the Seeker chariot's extra steeds, which I thought we had agreed on but perhaps got missed off previous edits.

Excellent! That's all I'm asking for really.

Great work concerning the PDF! Once TheRealVeon grinds himself through all those edits things are gonna start look really clean and tidy!

- I was a bit confused when I saw the 5+ KB (Axe of Khorne) for the Herald. I failed to mention it however. I guess, perhaps, because I was in favor of that 'change'. *haha* But you're right, we agreed (finally) to leave it working the same way as in our current book.

- The costs that you suggest for the Chariots (for the Heralds and for Skulltaker) are completely new to me at least. I don't mean to "discuss" them. They seem like reasonable edits, and I have actually already added them to 'page 1'. But I am just saying that it's "no wonder" RealVeon got them 'wrong' since the costs he had written in the PDF were in accordance with Page 1.

The rest of the points you make are excellent and I have nothing to question or dwell on really.

So, RealVeon, are you keeping pace with this onslaught?!

Hi guys, I'm busy working through all the edits you've provided. I've gotten through Jonathan's first post and I am working on the second. I also got the fluff roughed in for Slaanesh, so there's that.

And normally I do like to have everything more finalized, Jonathan. But I was worried when DaemonReign started talking about printing this out and I didn't want him to do that only to see this version and kick himself for not waiting. Or kick me for not telling him I was working on it. So I really just posted it halfway through typing it up and it certainly shows.

Just a couple of points:

I'm not too concerned with Epidemius allowing for auto wounding. As DaemonReign has said, a lot has to fall into line for it to happen, far more than what needs to happen with Flaming Sword. So if we are concerned with Plaguebearers doing this, I don't see why we wouldn't be with Bloodletters as well. Also in the FAQ, GW states that you can get to Wound on a 1+ but its rare, so they don't seem to have a huge problem with the idea.

Sorry to bring this up again but, Skulltaker currently (7th ed) doesn't have Heroic Killing Blow (except in challenges), but in this rewrite he has it all the time. I just want to be clear, because I must have missed where this upgrade was put in. Although with his 50 point price increase, it makes sense.

Skarbrand: it says in the current text that when he landed it formed a canyon, but nothing says we can't change it to crater if you want.

Seeker Chariot: I have Ascended listed here because it explains what the upgrade does. There's no other upgrade in the army list which explains or lists the rules that the upgrade buys. It's always just the name of the rule and the price. If it was a generic piece of equipment, like heavy armour, I'd agree, but since it's a specific rule I thought it should be spelled out. The other option is to drop the name 'Ascended' and just list in the entry that it can buy more Steeds and leave it at that.

Plague Toads: 'his pestilence presence' doesn't make any sense to me which is why I have pestilent instead. Perhaps this is correct in British English versus American. Anyone else?

Also, as for the summary, I kind of like the different colors since it makes it easy to pick out which daemon you're looking for. Sure, once you know where everything is, it's easy to spot, but when you're just glancing, I find that it makes it a little easier to navigate. Especially if you're running a mono-list and you don't care about any of the other gods. But if DaemonReign and others agree that it clutters the list up too much, I'll change it. And for me it is clearer when printed out than when looking at it on a screen, if that's all you're doing.

That sounds awesome RealVeon.
I'll make a couple of breif comments before going to sleep, all though JonathanC will have to speak for himself on some of these question of course.

First of all, sorry if I rushed you when I started talking about printing stuff out. Then again, it was perhaps good that we kicked ourselves into gear and moved forward also. In any case, there is no rush to the point where we should make compromises with the 'quality' of the final document - all though I think we all feel at this point that we shouldn't just sit around and linger either.

I actually think the 'window' where we can hope to have even the slightest impact on the Real Next DoC book is closing pretty quickly. To be perfectly honest. We should have an initial draft sent sooner rather than later, so yeah let's not rush ourselves but still..

Epidemius
Well yeah..
I think having that "cap" of never better than 2+ would be tantamount to installing a very marginal 'limit' on the Tally, at the price of possibly creating 'new' questions for a future Erratq/FAQ. At least I would immediately ask myself what actually happens if I have reached 35+ wounds with the Tally and then manage to cast Soulblight and Flaming Sword in the same Magic Phase.
Such questions are avoided if we just 'accept' that 'autowounding' is a rare but existing element of 8th Edition.

Skulltaker
Our initial premise was basically that he needed to go up in cost. From what I gather to a large extent because part of the point of this project has been to 'nerf' Daemons with love. That means 'nerfing' that stuff that other players complain about, while at the same time keeping the stuff that makes Daemon-players enjoy their Army.
So Skulltaker needed to become more expensive, and changing his HKB from being present only "inside" Challanges sort of became necessary because of that point-hike of 50pts.
Basically: If you spend 200pts on a Special Character you can't have a special ability that everyone can just "counter" by litterally refusing to fight you. The "broken cheese" of Skulltaker is in serious doubt - as we speak - since (hey!) all you really need to do in order to counter him is to (1) not run lone characters on monsters into him or his unit and (2) simply refuse to accept his Challanges otherwise.
That can be seen as 'ok' for a 150pts Character. But it becomes silly if he costs 200pts.
At least I think that's the rationale behind this change. But SC's is not my field of expertise so perhaps JonathanC will enlighten you further on the issue.

Skarbrand
I think the wording 'canyon' is fine, and as you say also the current wording so unless JonathanC really feels strongly on this issue (which I really can't imagine) I'd say keep the word 'canyon'.

Seeker Chariot and the issue of 'Ascended'
I shan't speak for JonathanC but I think your argument makes sense.

PlagueToads
English is not my Native language, but I agree that "his pestilent presence" is what I would say myself, where-as "his pestilence presence" doesn't sound right.
In that case I would reword it into 'the presence of his pestilence'.

Colors in the Summary
I don't think this is a huge deal for JonathanC. Mostly just a kind remark in the spirit of making the PDF really mimic a 'real' Army Book down to the very last comma. Arguably, if we remove the colors from the Summary because it doesn't look that way in Army Books, we should follow suit and remove All Mark-related coloring of pages throughout the entire document.
Unless JonathanC somehow thinks that any GW rep reading will laugh hysterically and throw our document in the trash without reading it (on the sole basis of those colors!) I would say that it is your prerogative to keep those colors.

(I interpret JonathanC's comment on this issue mostly as 'an aside' reflection. If he thinks the coloring of the Summary seriously impeeds the appearant 'seriousness' of our effort then he'll have to say so and then, perhaps, we could concider going for a more 'orthodox' look. I don't know.)

Good night!

OK, to clarify my earlier comments for you.

Skarbrand - well I probably should have checked the current book again here as I had forgotten it says canyon and not crater! I'm tempted to say "crater" is more scientifically plausible but this is Daemons and the Realm of Chaos we're talking about so I guess canyon is just as appropriate as crater here.

Seeker Chariot - yes I'm saying we should just drop the mane 'Ascended' as an upgrade, its really a relic from when we had the option of replacing the Seekers with a Fiend. I think the option for extra Steeds should be just like the option the Burning Chariot has for extra Screamers, in which case its only required to be listed in the army list entry.

Skulltaker - well DaemonReign explains it pretty well, but it was also a change a few other players were asking for. Also, Heroic Killing Blow in challenges only is pretty narrow in use when so many armies don't have monstrous characters or field them on monster mounts.

The Summary - yeah its no biggie, just seeing all those different colours together like that reminded me of a packet of sweets (specifically Refreshers, which I'm not sure they make anymore), but I've only viewed this on the screen, if you say it looks better printed out I'll take your word for it. The only other reason for suggesting it was that it would mean you don't have to have those artificial white 'breaks' to seperate, for example, the Bloodcrushers and Blood Chariot.

Hope that answers your questions but don't hesitate to point out anything else you feel isn't clear.

Good points and clarifications JonathanC. I suppose we'll be dropping the wording about 'Ascended' then.
But... doesn't the Bloodchariot have the same kind of wording?

Now, I've been thinking lately about another pretty fundamental 'suggestion' that we could possibly implement in this re-write, and I'll say from start that this 'idea' isn't really my own, and it's certainly kind of late to the party, but I'll just mention it to see what the rest of you think!

About a week ago I got entangled in a rules-discussion on Warseer. Despite knowing better, I might add. It wasn't really a rules-discussion either, as the actual rules-question had already been answered when I read that thread.

It was someone asking if Daemons can make use of rules like "Stubborn" etcetera (with their Instability) because some of his gaming-mates had told him they couldn't.

Being Warseer, of course there was a couple of people who just had to add their opinion that Daemonic Instability is so much better than Unstable, and they were also more or less implicit about the idea that Daemons should/will become Unstable when they are eventually redone.

Since I really hate that idea, and since I honestly really hate people who think it's fine to level crap at Daemons for no other reason than them being Daemons I just had to have a go at this. And that conversation wasn't very fruitfull. I was basically stuck talking to more or less trolling people telling me that there's no difference between the magic that animates Undead stuff and the powers that makes Daemons manifest on the mortal plane.

I got really weird comparions thrown in my face, like how units from different armies are 'Stubborn' and how this supposedly proves that "different units" can have the same Special Rules for vastly different reasons.

The whole experience would have been just another Whineseer-nosebleed if it hadn't been for the frequent Warseer poster (and appearant Daemon player) Lord Inquisitor joining the discussion and airing an idea for Daemonic Instability that I actually found quite intriguing:

He basically said that while he hoped that Daemons would KEEP Instability in a new book he also hoped that there would be some "additions" to the rule, and he specifically mentioned "Panic Tests" as somehting that could be added.

Essentially, whenever a Daemon unit takes more than 25% in casualties from Shooting, Lord Inquisitor argued that they could take an Instability check on their unmodified Ld and perhaps suffer some more wounds.

This would, of course, not represent any "panic" per say. But rather how the general "blow" to the unit sometimes momentarily offsets the equilibrium of warped powers that holds the Daemons to the mortal plane.

Well, maybe it's too late to add stuff like this. Maybe it's a bad idea. Compared to the rest of the posts in that "rules discussion", however, it was a really fresh and interesting idea.

The others were saying stuff like: "Give Daemons Unstable and let them heal back models using the Lore of Life!"

If that gives you an idea..

Well its an interesting idea but I think its a bit late to implement it, particularly now we have added Rivalry as the two together would be quite a bad nerf to some units or army set-ups, it would probably have to be one or the other and you can probably guess which I'd prefer.

I wouldn't worry about the Blood Chariot, its appropriate for it to be listed in the Bestiary as the upgrade includes a stat change (+1W) and not just an extra creature pulling the machine as with the other two chariots.

Also, I forgot to answer theRealVeon's question earlier about my comments on Plague Toads. I think that was me misreading that part of the text and the way it is currently worded is correct, either that or change it to 'pestilence' and delete the word 'presence' after it and it would make just as much sense.

I'll go back to making my mock-up of The Eye now...

That's what I was guessing about the Bloodchariot.

And I have failed to mention it, but naturally I'm really looking forward to seeing what you're tinkering with when it comes to the 'Eye of Tzeentch'.

'Panic Tests' and/or Rivalry. I didn't really concider that aspect. Frankly, having to take an Instability Test (unmodified) upon taking 25% casualties doesn't seem too horrible - even assuming you're only at Ld 7/8.

Furies would potentially suffer quite badly from it though, seeing as they are generally "outside" of the IP-bubble. I somehow doubt Lord Inquisitor really factored that one into the equation to be honest.

Oh well, just thought I'd mention it. Perhaps it might be a nice little 'comma' to mention in the Designer's Notes. Sort of under the general heading of 'If you feel Instability is Broken, please concider these changes before giving us unstable and live the rest of your life with constant death-threats.' (?)

Haha, agreed on the last part DReign!

Just one point on your corrections, Jonathan, specifically about listing Daemonic Gifts as Equipment:

I asked DaemonReign a few pages back, probably when you were moving, about Daemonic Gifts versus Equipment, and he felt that any Gifts a daemon may have should not be listed as equipment as well (or at all) to prevent them from being deactivated or destroyed by some spell or ability which can do that. For example, if Skarbrand's Axes are listed as equipment, does that mean they can be destroyed with Vaul's Unmaking? Can the Unholy spear be neutralized by Obsidian Armour? If it is listed as both, or simply as equipment, then the resolution to these issues is pretty unclear, but if they are simply Daemonic Gifts, the rules are very simple.

Even if certain daemons doesn't use the weapons they are described as having, the simplicity of the rules trumps this bit of discontinuity. The rules, after all, are simply abstractions used to describe in general what's happening on the battlefield, and are not meant to be direct representations.

At least that was my understanding of what DaemonReign's decision on the issue was. Perhaps I'm wrong and he'll chime in here and explain what he feels they should be.

I'm confused now because I thought it was JonathanC that said Daemonic Gifts shouldn't be listed as 'Equipment' in the first place.
At any rate, TheRealVeon makes good points here so I'd be inclined to agree with him on this issue unless we're both missing some important detail.

The only thing I remember is that this question came up when we discussed those 2 axes that Skarbrand carries - and as far as I can remember we simply decided to have them listed as "Daemonic Gifts [period] from here on out.

*Hm...*

This is with regards to JonathanC's comment on p64 in the PDF where the rules for N'kari are listed. Perhaps we're over-thinking this. As for 'Vaul's Unmaking' (and such effects) - they effect Magic Items don't they?
Meaning what's listed under 'Equipment' is perhaps completely 'meaningless' in this respect?
I assume, especially from JonathanC using the word "perhaps" when mentioning this that he's mostly concerned with each Entry in the Bestiary Section following the same standards:
If Kugath has his weapon mentioning under 'Equipment' then so should N'Kari (would be the reasoning, as far as I can understand it), but neither are listed as Magic items/weapons.
And isn't that the case with those Axes that Skarbrand carries? Arn't they infact listed as Magic Weapons in our current book? I'm at work, so I can't check.

JonathanC will have to sort this out for us.

Just a couple of issues concerning various Icons:

The Icon of Crimson Carnage currently states: 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.

Which is fine when the Bloodcrusher Standard Bearer is taking it, but when the BSB (who is after all, a Herald of Khorne) has it, the wording is a little weird. So I would suggest changing the second sentence to something like: if the unit would already gain the Hatred Special Rule due to the presence of a Herald of Khorne, then they get to...

Secondly the Banner of Change should do Flaming hits, correct?

Finally, with regard to the topic of Gifts versus Equipment, I would be alright listing weapons as equipment, but I think at the very least there should be a rule somewhere stating that they can't be nullified since they are gifts as well.

But then what about other Gifts? In the current book (7th) Skulltaker's Cloak is listed as a Daemonic Gift in the bestiary, and then under Weapons and Armour in the Army List. I think this was example that first prompted me to ask DaemonReign about it.

But again, if various Weapons that are written out as Daemonic Gifts are to be included in the army list under Equipment, should Gifts like Skulltaker's Cloak be listed there as well? And would rules that affect equipment affect it?

I understand why listing these under equipment is nice, but I still think just keeping them as gifts is cleaner and does away with a lot of potential FAQ questions or lengthy paragraphs in the army wide rules section explaining that while some Daemonic Gifts are listed as equipment, they do not follow the standard rules of equipment and may never be lost, destroyed, etc. They do however, follow all the rules associated with Daemonic Gifts.

I just think it's the simplest solution, but if you have a better suggestion, I'd love to hear it.

Sorry I'm a bit busy tonight RealVeon.
.. And I basically agree with you.So unless JonathanC thinks it pivotal I'd say leave the Gifts out of the 'Equipment' category.

The rest of the stuff you suggest are 'clock-clean' (as we say in Swedish) as far as I am concerned.

EDIT
Was completely beat after a night of gaming. So last evening I went to bed ultra-early. And it seems nothing much has happened here either.

How's it going with the PDF RealVeon?