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

Cool game DaemonReign. Very informative. You said that your friends like the balance of the gifts, but what did they think of the book overall? Did they think it was pretty even-handed, or did they feel it was too overpowered?

As for the Rending Claws: I suppose they're sort of like Killing Blow, but they only work on 6s and they don't auto-kill multi-wound models. Of course they still work on things that can't be killing blow-ed. Or am I wrong on that? I always forget, can things that can't be killed from Killing Blow still take their armour save, or is it negated for everyone? Either way, I'd say the Claws are slightly less powerful than Killing Blow, especially since they must be bought as an upgrade.

How much do you think the Nurglings are worth being still effective at only two bases? Five more points?

I don't think that the Siren Song should work in your turn. At least that's the way it should be worded to keep it simple. As far as detachments go, they shouldn't be affected since their parent unit is not charging themselves. If they still had supporting charge, I would say that it should be possible to peel them off of the main charge. But they don't, so I would say that it shouldn't affect them, and to be consistent, say that it doesn't work in the Daemon's turn.

Those are my initial thoughts, it's a lot to take in, so as it filters through my brain, I'll post more.

I've incorporated some of your (uncontroversial) FAQ suggestions, but I'd like some feedback from Jonathan on them before I enter them. I agree that the Standard of Chaos Glory should work on both sides of the table. Epidemius works that way, so why shouldn't this banner?

Or, before I forget; are their any glaring issues you noticed with the book in your game? Anything that totally stuck out that we hadn't notice before? Thanks.

* I added JonathanC's 'clean-up' to the Designer's Notes (my 3rd post on page 1) with only minor changes - I did change some 'syntaxes' in the first paragraph of "Daemonic Gifts" but the portent of that paragraph is unchanged. I had originally specifically mentioned, as an aside, my [perhaps strictly private] opinion that the Number of Gifts in our re-write really is 'optimal' as far as I am concerned, where-as JonathanC's clean-up only included the general sentiment that we should have at least as many Gifts as in our present Book.

In case this is something we should debate, here's the part where I made some changes:

So I'm not writing: Shut up and give us more variety! (As might have been the implicit meaning before, hehe) but my [quite strong] opinion on this matter is at least 'hinted' at in the last sentence.. Hopefully without stepping on any toes.
If you guys want to discuss this I'm naturally ready to do so! After all, it's probably futile to ask GW to give us a greater number of Gifts - and thus perhaps a meaningless notation.

REPLIES TO YOUR COMMENTS ON THE BATTLE REPORT ETCETERA

- It's true I might not have been as 'reckless' with the DP had it not been 'our version' (as opposed to the 'current' DP). Given the situation, however, I think I would have attempted the exact same actions with it. And the point I was making was that the 3+ Regen did not come into play against the Banishment Spells that I wardsaved, while those Swordsmen failed to wound the DP (rather than the Regen saving me) and we have not changed the Toughness of the thing.
And above all let's just take in the fact that the Daemon Prince would not have been fielded AT ALL with his current cost/rules (quite litterately so: the Lord Allowance would have been grossely traversed!).

- Siren Song I'm fine either way on this one really. I think it would actually be kind of neat to add a bracket in the mechanic that simply says (including any 'out of phase' Charge actions) because we've taken Siren Song down conciderably and those Detachments are pretty damn good.
At any rate, the current 'wording' we have written for the Siren Song Gift in the PDF will inevitably lead to an FAQ with regards to the Detachments. I agree that it shouldn't, but having played this game against Empire it was appearant to me that any players any less adult than me and my friend could easily argue for HOURS on whether or not a counter-charging Detachment would be effected or not. We might scoff at this and look at our wording and say that people are just hard of thinking and that our rules-text actually cover the relevant details to resolve it all... But yeah, just look at the Steadfast+Detachments mess in the Empire book itself (!) - Steadfast is easy to resolve, passing things from Regimental to Detachment is not hard to understand, and still there are like 10 different 'interpretations' of how to actually play it!
So bottom line is: We should look at the Siren Song 'mechanic' with this in mind and just make sure even the dumbest gamers on the planet can't start an argument about it.

- Tzeentch Firestorm ... Well, we know what it can do, don't we? In the game I just played it certainly wasn't worth 6-dicing. Had I rolled a 5-6 for Strength I'd probably won a massacre though. But there are always extreme variables like that:
- His cannon Missfired and Blew up on the first shot. I don't know the exact odds but the odds for Killing my BT with the 2 shots it would otherwise have gotten must be a lot higher than going *BOOM* on the first shot.
- Same thing with his IC Knights: If he had gotten the Charge on my Bloodcrushers I reckon he would have won the game.
- It was just pure luck he didn't kill my Prince with all those Banishments/Burning Gazes he cast on it. Rolling up like 3 hits on 2D6.

- Secret Upgrades.
Well I agree with you JonathanC! They should not be 'revealed' at the start of the game (like clearly 'visible' choices of equipment commonly are). The reason me and my friend got onto the subject is really 'only' that the Battle-Hardened upgrade reads "Heavy Armour" (in the 'mortal' thinking of my Empire friend 'heavy Armour' is something you'd be able to see across the Battlefield).
If you read the Fluff that RealVeon has written for Battle-Hardened it's appearant however that it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with having an actual armour.
Anyway: This is something that needs to be clarified, and I actually reckon it should be added as a separate heading on the page where the General rules for Daemons are explained (Instability, Rivalry, etcetera).
There are a few things I've concidered there:
The word 'upgrades' is a bit 'dry' somehow. 'Blessings' is already used for other armies (Brettonia, right?) ... 'Gifts' will lead to confusion..
How about calling the upgrades 'Citations of Chaos' instead?
Then we describe them as a lower form of Daemonic Gifts, bestowed on favoured minions rather than Characters, that follow all the rules of Daemonic Gifts except being specifically purchased for units. (?)
-- Even if calling them 'Citations of Chaos' doesn't tickle your fancy, I think what I describe 'mechanically' is the way to go in order to avoid any FAQ-bs on the subject.

Appendix for PlayTesting
I honestly think we should hammer out the last details (both of the PDF and the Designer's Notes etcetera) and send it in sooner rather than later JonathanC. But naturally it should be mentioned that we are playtesting (in fact, that we have already started doing that!) and that we'll 'follow up' in a couple of months' time with a full Review of our findings. Or I don't know.. maybe that's exactly what you meant in the end. (?)

Well.. *haha* As virtually every non-daemon player they are more or less 'polluted' by places like Warseer etcetera. My Empire playing friend grumbled a little over Bloodletters only costing 13pts (he thinks 14 is appropriate) - but that was before we actually played this game where he finally (and for the first time ever) managed to properly deal with a large Horde of Bloodletters...
My friends are kinda funny. They'll start arguing about the strangest of things. I mentioned that they actually liked and supported the changes we had done with Bloodcrushers, but a few hours after the game they started 'worrying' about "Bloodcrusher Hordes"..
"Ah man, A Horde of Battle-Hardened Bloodcrushers with Herald (AoK) and 'Icon of Crimson Carnage' - is going to KILL EVERYTHING!!!"
Ok, they have a Daemon Player in their group who can actually field a Horde of Crushers ( ) - and they know, of course, that I eventually would too. But still.. Even in the Special Slot you'd need to play a 3k game and invest HALF your damn points (and more) into that ONE unit.
So yeah... I thought it was a bit of a funny thing to get 'stuck over' personally.

They certainly endorsed the changes to Siren Song. All the new Gifts (etcetera) seemed ok to them once they had deconstructed them a little bit. Like I said, the Mark of Nurgle for the DP jolted them at first, until they remembered the DP already has 5++ to begin with.

About 'Rending Claws' I believe they (playing mainly Dwarves and Empire) are looking at the upgrade from a specific angle. And it's like I had to remind them like ten times that Hello! Bloodletters are S5 for crist's sake! when they started sounding like Daemonettes and Bloodletters were 'the same' now..
By the way: 'Rending Claws' would certainly cancel out the Armour save of 'anything' with a normal Armour Save. You're right about that RealVeon.
Anyway, I personally think anything that requires you to roll 6's just can't be that problematic (you saw the To Wound rolls of my Daemonettes in this battle - that's why I included them!) - and Rending Claws caters well to the notion of playing MonoSlaanesh so without at least further playtesting (better match-ups) I wouldn't change anything there.

Overall, my friends have probably not studied our re-write to the indepth degree where they can (or have) pass any final judgement. Their partly victims of the same prejudices toward our army that is promoted by the ETC and Warseer - but they haven't gotten all huffy-puffy about anything I've brought up so far.

Despair Icon, Master of Sorcery, Bloodletters - well all the things they hated (and had any real reason to complain about) we have actually tended to in this re-write. And at the end of the day the facts speak for themselves: This game against Empire was extremely even all the way to the end, and my Empire friend would indeed have won if he had only gotten the Charge with those Knights (or killed my DP with his Magic, which he statistically should have, or hadn't blown up his cannon - which he really shouldn't have done statistically!).

They are not blind to such facts.

Nurglings
Thinking a bit more about it perhaps they are still quite all right at 35pts. I guess you would pay 40pts/model for 2 of them, but then you'd basically never take bigger units of them.
And if you compare them to Furies:
6 Furies (the 'efficient' WM-hunting size AFAIC) cost 66 pts.
2 Nurglings cost 70pts.
Nurglings Scout, Furies Fly.
Same attacks (against a WM), Furies S4 Nurglings have Poison.
Nurglings only definate advantage is better Leadership - and they are 4 points more expensive.
So yeah, dropping them in 2's is definately good against Armies like the one I was facing, but it may be premature to call for a point-hike.

The bit about the Upgrades being revealed at the start of the game was ONE THING. The issue of Siren Song vs Detachments is another.
At the moment I can't think of any other rules-query that's pertinent to our re-write. But I'll have another chat with them when I see them and see if anything else comes up.

Cheers guys!
And can you believe it! The two of you are the only ones that have even commented on that bloody batrep I posted! *lol* I mean, I know it's a bit flaky with experimental rules and all.. but still.. come on! haha

What if instead of "Battle Hardened" it was something like "Scales of Brass" and became a scaly skin save? That would effectively remove said complaint about modeling issues, no?

Well, the easiest solution ought to be to simply write "5+ Armour Save" instead of 'Heavy Armour'.
But really, at the end of the day that's not going to matter - what matters is the fact that those 'upgrades' are listed very similarily to the way 'mundane equipment' are listed for 'mortals&undead' - so regardless of how we word the Battle-Hardened upgrade specifically the 'issue' will pop up amongst the player-base.

The fact that my friend reacted primarily on the wording 'Heavy Armour' (not to mention the fact that my Bloodletters have actual armour-bits on them) is just the detail that enlightened me (us) to this issue.

So the only 'solution' I see is to state clearly something like this:

***********************************
Citations of Chaos

When seasoned Daemonic minions have proven themselves to their Patron God, they are sometimes gifted additional abilities that denote their elevation compared to other Lesser Daemons. These Citations of Chaos are comparable in every way to Daemonic Gifts - save for the fact that they are bestowed on units of Daemons rather than Characters. Citations of Chaos are not to be confused with mundane equipment, for example; a 'Battle-Hardened' Bloodletter may not wear a single piece of visible Armour, and you could never tell a Daemonette with the Rending Claws citation from one without.
*********************

Something like that, after which it will no longer matter if we describe Battle Hardened as 'Heavy Armour' or Scaly Skin 5+ or simply 5+ Armour Save.

EDIT
By the way, my opponant made a little commentary in the batrep-thread which pretty much says 'in his own words' what I've been relaying here in this thread. Well, you guys should check out what he felt like sharing with us anyway!

As far as the 'upgrades' go, I called them that because that's how such things are listed in the most recent rulebooks (Vampires and Empire were the two I looked at the most when I changed how the purchased abilities were listed). What they really are (in both our book and all the other books) are new special rules that are only added to the unit's profile when they are specifically purchased.

I don't think we need to add a third category of 'citations' for these. At most we need to clarify that these are either special rules which the unit now benefits from or they are actually Daemonic gifts that the unit now benefits from. Either one would work for me. In all the other army books it's pretty clear the that things listed in the 'upgrade' boxes in the bestiary are special rules and obey all the rules and functions of special rules. So I would say that, if we had to say anything, we should just keep them as special rules and leave it at that.

As for your friend's suggestions: I think the concept of the lash of Khorne works best for Khorne, but if anyone else feels that the term 'lash' is better suited for Slaanesh, then we could come up with a new name.

I'm more interested in what he said concerning the Bloodcrushers. Does anyone else agree? He mentions that the Herald isn't really that necessary for them, but I don't think that's a bad thing. They are a more elite unit after all, and should have an easier time of dealing with opponents than a regular unit of Bloodletters.

Upgrades
Hm.. I guess you're right.
I guess what'll get people confused is that we got these Upgrades sprinkled 'all over' where-as in recent other Army Books Upgrades are still a pretty rare thing (turning up for the Terrorgheist, but not for Skellies) and I guess that's why they appeared to be 'mundane' equipment to my friend. (?) Anyway:
Good. No need for inventing a new 'term' for this, then. Probably a good idea, like you say, to just make a little note of it being Special Rules, so that the sort of issues that we ran into in this game doesn't surface for other people.

Lash of Khorne
It's 45pts. Very nasty against Empire with their squishy characters that can't actually survive one round of combat with a naked Herald of Khorne, but actually a Death-Sentence to the Herald himself against a lot of other races. I think my buddy is being a bit fooled by the fact that we are not playing with 'unknown' opponants (and thus not 'all-comers' lists) - I mean, by that logic that combo of Armour of Meteoric Iron and The Other Trickster's Shard should be forbidden as well.
He should have brought a couple of WitchHunters and tried to score a Killing Blow ranged attack on my super-expensive BSB before combat even began. And I certainly agree with you, RealVeon, it's a very suitable Gift for Khorne - his Characters are all about fighting other chars in combat, and preventing cowards from escaping their fate. Slaanesh already have appropriate Gifts in the shape of Temptator etcetera that fits Slaanesh fluff much better.

Rending Claws
Again, my friend is looking at the Army as a whole - overlooking that unlike with Empire or any other race (really) we need to concider both Total Army List Balance (what he's talking about: Bloodletters are can openers, Horrors are support, etcetera) and MonoGod balance.
I seriously don't think Daemonettes are making Bloodletters obsolete with that upgrade - like JonathanC said, maybe (big maybe!) Rending Claws should be 2pts per model.. But that's as far as I'd go.

Bloodcrushers
As with a lot of the other things I've mentioned above in this post I haven't really had time to talk to Brynolf in detail about what he says. Because I believe he's looking at some things just a bit superficially:
Giving the 'Bloodletters' 1 attack and upping the combat prowess of the Jugger is a pretty terrible idea - he must be comparing them to DemiGryphs - because taking them in Units would become really bad given the loss of Supporting Attacks. I don't think anyone would like how cheap they would have to become in order for this to work.
Battle-hardened might be a common sight on them. That's for sure. All the more point you're losing when they are hit with stuff that allows no Armour Save. A lot of Lore of Metal stuff is gonna be complete Murder on Battle Hardened Bloodcrushers. They are 80pts per model. There are counters for this.
The 'lack of need' for a Herald of Khorne is debatable as well. It would certainly be that way if you gave the 'riders' 1 attack each. The way I fielded them in our game probably isn't cost-effective though: I could have just taken the Icon of Crimson Carnage for 100pts less of course. But then his crazy Grandmaster would only have had to kill that Champ and then he could have continued to hack away on the actual unit (combat could easily have tipped the other way then) - it was actually the Herald that tipped the scale in that combat.
We've moved them to the Special Slot, we have upped the min-unit size to 3 - and yes we do want to see "units" of them with 6 or more models, deployed in ranks, from now on.
So yeah, you can argue that the Armour is a no-brainer and that the Icon of Crimson Carnage makes the Herald (Locus) obsolete - but given how that Icon is even better on a Horde of Bloodletters with the BSB (as I fielded it) you still have some hard choices to make when deploying a unit like that.
And I really think the Herald still have a place in there. In bigger units - where the risks and gains of Bloodcrushers should be appearant (counter them at rank with stuff that allows no armour save and they become even worse pointsinks than they were before).

A bit pressed on time at the moment. On my way to work. So I hope I'm not coming off as ranting here *lol* - just wanted to cover all the issues you bring up quickly and in one go.

Cheers!

EDIT
Let me clarify something about Bloodcrushers and Brynolf's comments on them:
He's looking at them as though they are Bloodletters riding Juggernauts. But they are not. I think you captured that so well in the fluff-text regarding them. They're a different Daemon entirely, only appearing as a Bloodletter riding a Jugger.
So I think the bit about Brynolf thinking that they should have the same exact Stats as Bloodletters is coming from that, really..

About Rending Claws:
This is something we should Play Test, of course. Hopefully I'll get to make a practically "monoSlaanesh" army against Dwarves next time I get a chance to playtest stuff. That will certainly give us an idea of how they work, or at least have a good chance of giving us such ideas.
At the moment I'm having a hard time seeing how Rending Claws could be a problem (even at only 1pt cost) as long as Daemonettes are S3. If they were S4 you might be able to put them next to Bloodletters.. but not with S3.

OK, lots to discuss here thanks to the battle report bringing up some potential issues. First off though I'll cover DaemonReign's revision of my revision of his designer's notes!

We have decided to keep Daemonic Gifts working the same way they do in the current book. The number of Gifts available has been expanded, and this is to be regarded as a 'bundle' of suggestions for mechanics that we think would work well as Daemonic Gifts. We are aware that the number of Gifts will most likely be fewer in any official release, but we felt the nature of this re-write made it suited for making a broad set of suggestions in this section. We have of course noted a decrease in army-specific Magic Items in other 8th edition army books - although all such armies are compensated by having access to a wide range of 'shared' Magic Items from the main rulebook. Indeed, the number of Gifts in our revision are almost exactly as many as the 'net total' of Magic Items available to other 8th Ed Army Books. Therefore it is the sentiment of this Board that Daemons should have access to at least as many Gifts as currently.

The changes are fine, but I would remove the underlined bit for the sake of brevity, and the bold part is something which I missed first time around that needs to be changed.

Upgrades: I agree with RealVeon here, no need to add another term which has to be explained when the same terminology is used in other books. Quite a few TK constructs also have similar upgrades. Also I'd hate to add more potential confusion when a Citation is also a Gift.

Standard of Chaos Glory: Isn't there a general ruling in the main rulebook FAQ that asks about using your opponents magic items, to which the answer is no? If so that pretty much answers how this one should be resolved, and makes the answer in the DoC FAQ a relic that should have been removed.

Battle-Hardened: changing it to "Models with this upgrade have a 5+ armour save" would clear up any confusion, plus looking at the way it is written now in the pdf it could be taken to read that Heralds in the unit get the benefit too, so changing the wording a bit to specify its just models with the upgrade will stop this from happening.

Lash of Khorne: well 'lash' sounds appropriate to me, given Bloodthirsters carry a giant whip. Maybe if the name was changed to being more generic by replacing the word Khorne for something else, it could be a gift suitable for Slaanesh Daemons too. No ideas for the name at present. Whatever name it has I don't think it suits the character of Nurgle or Tzeentch.

Tzeentch's Firestorm: well Brynolf seemed to think it was reasonable, which is good. Thinking about it some more, it does at least make Magic Resistance more relevant again, which is something Empire have a lot of access to if I remember correctly (STILL waiting for my Empire book to arrive).

Nurglings: I don't think they need a points hike, after all units of 2 are more likely to get destroyed by anything but War Machines in combat - even 5 Skeleton Horse archers could give 2 bases problems. Also, it compensates for losing the other chaff units.

Bloodcrushers: hmm, well background justification or not, I think they work well enough as they are. I don't think the armour upgrade is a no-brainer for them simply because it bumps their cost up by so much and their base cost is pretty high to start with. I think they would typically be fielded in units of 3ish with armour, or 5+ without armour in most cases. Its only when you get to the 4k level where units of 6 with armour becomes viable really.

Changing the stats to a normal Bloodletter and upping the power of the Juggers would make them a lot like Demigryphs, where the power of the unit comes from the mounts rather than the riders. If you did that the armour would be almost mandatory, and it would look odd compared to the 'fix' we applied to Pox Riders to stop second-rankers being little more than ablative wounds. That combination works well on Demigryphs because they are cheap (by monstrous cavalry standards) but I wouldn't want Bloodcrushers to become 'cheap' monstrous cav because I don't think it suits their status within the army. Finally, because Juggers are in the WoC book as well I feel our scope for altering their profile and abilities too much is limited, adding the third wound really just reset them to how they should have been in the first place.

Appendix D: well it would mostly be sent in later, I was just thinking of a small table to send in with everything else that includes details like playtester's name, game size, opponents army, scenario, result, plus maybe a few comments underneath on specific issues noted/feedback received.

The PDF: noticed a few things that may need to be cleared up along with whats been discussed above:

p12 - Juggernauts are listed as having A3 when it should be A2.

p55 - Ruinous Blade: perhaps should state "Close comabt attacks made by this Daemon have the Multiple Wounds (D3) special rule."

p57 - Balesword: should say "Multiple Wounds (D6) special rule" in the wording.

p57 - Blade of Entropy: this reads as if the non-Daemon player makes the D6 roll, when it should be the other way around.

p57 - Stream of Corruption: should specify a minimum of Strength 1.

p58 - Many Armed Monstrosity: should probably be in the shared gifts section of there is room for it there.

p59 - Elemental Form: wording seems a bit off, should be 'the' instead of 'a' in the rules perhaps.

Thats enough for now I think.

* Tended to your comments on the Designer's Notes JonathanC.

Upgrades
Well all I'm saying is Brynolf immediately 'mistook' them for being the equivalent of 'Mundane Equipment' options. And I can personally see why you'd get that idea - even though technically yes they are listed as 'upgrades' and if people look that word up in other Army Books they'll find that it ain't 'mundane equipment' that's being dealt with here.
If at all possible, it should somehow be made clear. That's all. The way it's written now will inevitably lead to demands for FAQ-resolution.

Standard of Chaos Glory
I have just read the entire Main Rulebook Errata/FAQ and I could find no reference to this question of using the opponant's Magic Items that you bring up JonathanC. I am of course humble to the fact I might have missed it!
Even so, Army Books trumps Basic Rulebook in any conflict so if we write that the Standard of Chaos Glory effects 'all Daemons (on both sides!)' then that's the rule taking precedence regardless.
I brought this up mostly for musing about it, but it seems RealVeon is in favor of returning the Glory-flag to its 'old' function (previously the FAQ said that Daemons on both sides were effected) and while it's perhaps not a huge deal I'd personally agree with RealVeon on this one. It's simply way cooler if that Icon effects 'all Daemons' - and I reckon it would make players think twice about bringing it in 'all-comers' lists for Tournaments where facing other Daemon Armies is a definate risk.
- I guess that last bit is actually why the FAQ was changed though. Anyway: Are we to interpret what you write as you being definately opposed to this idea, JonathanC? I'd personally be prepared to say it's your call really - but if we're gonna vote (between the 3 of us) I'd side with RealVeon on this one. (If that makes any sense..? haha)

Battle-Hardened
Yes. For Bloodletters the upgrade should read "Models with this upgrade have a 5+ armour save" and - I assume - for the Bloodcrushers it should say "Models with this upgrade have a 2+ armour save" unless that 'stacking' with Brass Behemoth is implicitly clear to the point where Battle-Hardened could be descibed exactly in the same way in both places.
Perhaps, in the end, this is enough to remove the confusion about these 'Upgrades' that Brynolf ran into.. (?)

Lash of Khorne
First of all, to answer the question you posed in the actual Battle Report Thread:
Yes my HoK BSB did indeed use the 'Lash of Khorne' Gift twice in that battle. I used it in the first round of combat to force a Challange with the Champ in the GreatSword unit, then in the next round of Combat (since the Priest had been killed by Tzeentch Firestorm & Miscast Result already) I used it to Force a Challange with the (wounded) Captain in the same unit.
I'm sorry for not mentioning this in the report, but the way things turns out it wasn't very important - the 'Lash of Khorne' was meant to neuter the Speculum (in case my HoK BSB ran into that Magic Item) but since the Arch Lector (who had the Speculum) got Killing Blowed as soon as he joined combat (and since, at that point, there were no other eligible Characters in Empire's side that could accept Challanges) the 'Lash of Khorne' really didn't have any great effect.
In previous Combat Rounds (i.e. before the Arch Lector charged into this Combat) I guess Brynolf could have refused to accept my Challanges (attempting to hurt my HoK BSB with directed attacks from the unit instead!) - and while my friend rarely bothers with stuff like that, I guess this is the only impact on the game that the 'Lash of Khorne' actually had.
Still, sorry, I should have mentioned it of course!

As for Brynolf's critique on the 'Lash of Khorne', well he said two things mainly and I kind of disagree with both:
1 - It's More Appropriate for Slaanesh.
Looking closely at the fluff I'd say that, on the contrary, it's extremely appropriate for Khorne (and really no other God than Khorne!). Khorne's raison d'etre is Close Combat and Martial Prowess, the pride of the ultimate Warrior, two great Champions fighitng it out set aside from the common rabble - or a Scion of Khorne set out on a mission to 'collect skulls for the Skullthrone!' and - in doing so - being Gifted by his Dark Master a Lash that prevents those cowardly victims from denying him his shot at glory.
2 - It's too optimal for a Khorne Character!
It can be very good indeed. But you litterately pay through the nose in order to get that Lash of Khorne (especially when purchased for a Herald!). The Herald of Khorne has 5pts left of his Gift Allowance.. He will have no Armour, no Firestorm Blade, nothing at all except possibly the "Aura of Khorne" Gift which doesn't effect his Combat potential one bit.
I wanted to test the "Lash of Khorne" in this game. I was really worried that he'd bring a bunch of WitchHunters and just simply kill my Herald BSB before combat even began. Now, he should have brought those WitchHunters but he didn't it despite me almost telling him flat out that he should (hehe).
Our Khorne Lords will be able to Combo the 'Lash of Khorne' a fair bit more of course:
Lash of Khorne + Dark Insanity
Lash of Khorne + Obsidian Armour
Lash of Khorne + Firestorm Blade and Armour of Khorne
Etcetera.
So the next time anyone gets a chance at playtesting this Gift it should be done on one of our Khorne Lords, quite simply. I still reckon the Gift is correctly costed for a '100pts Gift Allowance' because 45pts is still almost 50% of that Allowance (simply put). No-matter how you Combo it, it seems to me, you are going to leave that BT/DPoK vulnerable (or less killy) as a direct result.
Bottom line is: I think it's a cool Gift, and a potent Gift as well - but with the cost of 45pts I'm having a hard time viewing it as a no-brainer. At any rate; It's not even close to being the 'no-brainer' that the Speculum represents, if we're to look sternly at Empire stuff here.

Tzeentch's Firestorm - Nothing to add really. I'm pleased with rolling a 3 for strength in that game. The randomness is a good thing - but only as long as the extreme ends of the 'random' spectrum are actually 'allowed'.

Nurglings - Excellent points JonathanC!

Bloodcrushers - Agreed as well.

Appendix D: - Absolutely. Once we've got the Initial Re-write and Designer's Notes sent in, this is what we'll be working on I reckon.

* Also, wow imagine there's still little things like that popping up in the PDF that needs correction. This proof-reading business is a tedious/hard process indeed! Good findings JonathanC! I assume TheRealVeon will tend to these matters as soon as he reads your post.

Well I played my game tonight but I'm a bit tired now so will post a report (with photos!) tomorrow. There weren't many issues but I did forget some stuff (like Lore attributes) which was annoying.

Just to respond to your point about the Standard of Chaos Glory above, the question is on p9 of the FAQ (not where I thought it would be) and is quoted below:

Q: It’s not uncommon for special rules or spells to beneficially
affect models of a certain type. If my opponent’s army also has such
models, can they be affected too? What about allied units on my own
side? (p132 & p136)
A: Special rules and spells such as this only ever affect friendly
units from their own army, and will not affect enemy or allied
units that happen to be in range.

So obviously I would like to remain consistent here and have the icon just affect the owner's army. I guess if we can't resolve this between us and no-one else chimes in with an opinion we'll have to vote on it like you say.

Until next time.....

I was thinking about the Battle hardened upgrade and how about we write it like the Blood Armour for the Behemoth which just says "The Behemoth has an Armour save of 4+." We could now say, Battle Hardened: "The Bloodletters in this unit have an Armour save of 5+". That way the Brass Behemoth special rule for the Juggernauts would still add to the armour save of the Bloodcrushers.

As for the Standard of Chaos Glory, we already have two units which give special rules to both sides: Epidemius's Tally works for all Nurgle daemons, friend and foe and Skarbrand gives Frenzy to all units, friend and foe, within range. So... we have some precedence for having the banner affect both.

However, both of the previous examples are special characters, which have all sorts of crazy things going on that really wouldn't fit in standard games. So, despite what I said above, I would have to agree with Jonathan, that the effect shouldn't carry across to the enemy. Perhaps the whole thing would feel better if we re-wrote the banner to say: "All friendly units within 12" gain the Stubborn special rule." Does that sound better?

Standard of Chaos Glory
That's funny JonathanC I started reading that very FAQ-entry but I was looking for keywords like 'Magic Items' etcetera so half-way through it I skipped forward.
Well good then, that settles it (sort of) - I never really meant we should let a 'vote' decide this anyway.
I just think that in this particular case it's rather 'unassociated' to only be effecting Daemons on your own side - taking in account the fluff of the Icon and all.
@ RealVeon - Yes. "All friendly units within 12" gain the Stubborn special rule." It may just as well be written like that instead, since that's the net-effect of the FAQ anyway.

JonathanC's PlayTest Game
Forgot the Lore Attributes huh? Well we're sort of in the same boat then.. In my group we have serious problems with remembering those Fear-tests (haha) so yeah in the game I played we did forget quite a lot of those. We also forgot that the Swordsmen fighting the DP were at -1 ToHit due to Cloud of Flies.
I don't think these minor failures to play by the rules had much of an impact though - the DP was 'saved' by his Toughness and well Fear-tests are forgotten in 8th Ed for a reason..
Very much looking forward to hearing more about the PlayTest game you conducted!

@ The RealVeon:
Battle Hardened: "The Bloodletters in this unit have an Armour save of 5+".
I'm in favor of this!

***********************************************************************
EDIT
In my post-game private correspondance with Brynolf it's rather evident to me that if there's any one thing that really annoys him then 'Rending Claws' would be 'it'.
It's the only bit he keeps repeating anyway.

Given how much difficulty we've had with Daemonettes it seems like a stretch to 'change' this bit based on the opinion of one person. However, perhaps it would be good to see what other people (outsiders, non-daemon-players) might think of that upgrade.

Originally we had the "Furious" Upgrade for Daemonettes as well. Ironically, I think Brynolf would be much more inclined to back the Furious Upgrade for Daemonettes instead of Rending Claws.

His whole argument, after all, is that Daemonettes shouldn't be good at killing Armoured Things but rather they should excell at slaughtering masses of Low Toughness rabble.
And as Math-Hammering showed us before the "Furious" upgrade would accomplish exactly that for Daemonettes.

Of course.. There's also a reason to why we ultimately removed the Furious Upgrade for Daemonettes (leaving Seekers the only unit that have it now). A Horde of 'Furious' Daemonettes will have the potential of dealing out 60 (likely re-rollable) attacks per combat phase - I'd love to send that unit up against one of Brynolf's big units of Knights and then cast Mindrazor on that unit.. He'd be missing those Rending Claws in no time I reckon..

Still, those 'Rending Claws' are really becoming a pet-peeve for him. Much more so than anything else that's surfaced so far in our re-write. I just want it to be noted - not saying we should bow to Brynolf's wishes, but if he really feels that way we should keep it in the back of our heads (if for no other reason out of respect for the fact that he's taking time from our other hobby-dealings to indulge me and our little project here!).

Speaking of Brynolf, nothing is for certain [yet] but I have asked him if he's got the time and desire to play another playtest run next Tuesday. Keeping my fingers crossed for that one.

*********************************************************************
EDIT
Have been reading a little bit in the Warriors of Chaos Rumours Thread and I recomend keeping an eye on Avian's summary of rumours on the first page there. Some things caught my eye today that may be pertinent to our work with Daemons:
Appearantly Juggers are rumoured to be introduced as a cross-over kit between Fantasy and 40K (just like our Bloodcrushers are today), and what caught my attention in that rumour is simply that someone said they'd have 2 wounds just like our current Bloodcrushers.
If true, that'd of course be a serious blow to our revamp of Crushers.
- And I suppose the only other alternative is to make Bloodcrushers cheaper instead. (?) Not at all saying that we should implement such changes now - because I think our renditions of Bloodcrushers are waay better.. But if these rumours turn out to be true we may have to rethink things down the line. Sadly.

I also noted some rumours about the WoC version of the Daemon Prince. There are no specific stats listed, but it is said to be quite powerfull and costing 220pts base with Wings costing 60pts(!). Those rumours said nothing, however, about whether or not the new WoC DP will have five our four wounds though.

As far as the WoC rumors go, they are interesting, but I don't think we should be basing our ideas off of rumors alone. If there was a new book out that would be different.

I don't that rending claws are that bad, but I can understand his point. Still giving Daemonettes furious would be too overwhelming. A horde could get 60 some attacks. How about a new rule that gives the unit Fight in Extra Ranks special rule? So a non-horde would fight in 3 ranks and a horde would fight in 4? How about that?

A possibility I suppose. At this point I'm reluctant to change anything until we've PlayTested 'Rending Daemonettes' against better match-ups (as compared to how they fared in my most recent game).

Another issue that your suggestion would bring about is one of 'rules-creep' - where-as we'd have 4(!) different Upgrades for 2 related units ... So we'd be looking at changing the Furious upgrade for Seekers into the 'Fight in Extra Ranks' and such an upgrade for Seekers would obviously not be much to cheer for given how big units you'd have to bring in order to make use of it.

Basically, as far as Brynolf's sentiment goes, there are two parts of it:
1 - If we learn that Daemonettes with this upgrade indeed become very similar to Bloodletters, then that's a technical reason for either upping the cost of the upgrade (or changing it in some other way).
2 - The fluff-based 'suitability' of said upgrade is more in the realm of opinion. Everyone in their mother will have their own opinion and at the end of the day we're never going to satisfy everyone at every given detail (let alone ourselves!).

Brynolf actually said himself that the he understood the fluff behind the Rending Claws. And I seriously think he's over-estimating the impact that upgrade will have on Daemonettes. Quite simply: Once he's gotten a few more games in with the new Empire book he will realize that casting Sheild of Faith of his Knights (hence getting that 5+ Wardsave) is going to be a common thing - and the Daemonettes still need to roll 6's (with the difference to Bloodletters that all their 2's and 3's will be failures!).

But it should be examined more closely. I'm leaning heavily toward going "Slaanesh Heavy" in the next test-game just for the sake of evaluating the actual impact of this upgrade. Hopefully we'd come back from that with even Brynolf agreeing that it isn't the end of the world.

*************************************************************************
EDIT
Well I've had some further e-mail correspondance with Brynolf (all breifly really, but still) and we did talk a bit more about those Rending Claws for Daemonettes.

He said he'd basically be in favor of a more 'clean divition' between Bloodletters and Daemonettes. Again: The Rending Claw upgrade, right or wrong, is making them too similar in his taste.

I did relay the complexity of both tending to such 'divitions' while at the same time taking care not to ruin the "monogod"-theme, and he acknowledged that this made the issue more complex. Of course.

Now it's what he said next that really made me think:
He said that something like Rending Claws could instead be given to Fiends of Slaanesh (making them the Slaanesh "can-openers") while Daemonettes could be left with a more extreme focus on killing non-armoured T3 hordes...
While I am still reluctant to change the "Rending Claws" for Daemonettes, at least without playtesting first, this did make me think about the "Scorpions" upgrade we have listed currently for Fiends.
How about simply swapping "Scorpions" for "Rending Claws" for Fiends of Slaanesh?
- It's a much simpler mechanic to keep track of. No "separate attack on profile" and no extra special rules.
- It does away with some of the rules-creep by letting us use the same Upgrade for both Daemonettes and Fiends.

At this point, at least in my own confused little head, it's sounding like a damn good idea. Brynolf is not gonna like it, of course, because he'd still want to be rid of the "Rending Daemonettes"...

And assuming that "Furious" simply won't work for Daemonettes at any cost (?) then perhaps we could look once more at Fiends... They have that Upgrade that makes the "universal Striders" right?
Could that be an alternative?
Daemonettes would be able to get Swiftstride as one Upgrade and become Striders by another Upgrade?

I'm not saying I'm exactly in favor of that idea. Just throwing it out there, as it were.
I believe it would however create exactly the kind of divition Brynolf is shooting for here: Daemonettes would become easily the fastest and most versatile infantry in the game, but they'd still suffer against anything heavily armoured and/or with High Toughness.

Well tell me, what do you think?

I suppose that's a possibility for Fiends, although Scorpions was one of the things I was thinking of trying out on them. The S5 they get from those attacks helps address the lack of punch in a mono-Slaanesh army more than the possibility of ignoring saves would (since they are already at -2 here). I think as demonstrated before Furious is a no-go for Daemonettes, but something simialr that grants 'fight in extra ranks' is still an option (if not as interesting). I'd avoid Strider and Swiftstride upgrades on the same unit though, too similar.

Batrep is here by the way. Missing some pictures at the moment which I'll add later when Photobucket is working properly.

Photobucket is a weird place indeed. I almost had a mental breakdown trying to edit my pics for the last BatRep I posted. It's especially aggravating when you edit something and the site tells you the operation has failed, and then a few updates later you see that the your changes have indeed been saved.. It's like there's this delay. Very confusing.

Daemonettes, Rending Claws, Alternatives
I don't quite follow how Strider & Swiftstride are 'too similar' but since it's just something I threw out there your general 'dislike' will suffice.
Guess we're keeping the 'Scorpions' upgrade too. I'm all right with that of course - believe it's my idea originally even.
As for Daemonettes, if Furious is 'off the table' for them (as indeed it is!) and the 'Sidewinder' (Strider) Upgrade doesn't tickle your fancy then - for the time being - I think we're 'stuck' with Rending Claws.
- I think inventing a 'second' middle-ground Upgrade that isn't Furious but 'works for Daemonettes' means looking too desperately for a pure 'mechanic' that is ok. Fighting in an extra rank is what Spears do, pretty much.

A wild idea that was floating around my head last night was that we'd either simply up the Attack value of 'Nettes (quite radical, not very 'serious') or create an 'upgrade' that allows them to do so.. For example: 'When rolling To Hit in Close Combat, Daemonettes with this upgrade immediately gain one extra attack when rolling a '6'. (?)

I don't know what you guys make of that one.. Hit me back!

JONATHANC's BATTLE REPORT

Great work!
Our revised Daemons win another one ey? Two for two then.. Man we better start losing some games soon, can't keep blaming the dice forever!!
Still, your friend Scott (maybe he could come on here himself like Brynolf did?) must have had the dice-gods against him. Unlike in our game, it seems you guys at least remembered to roll those damn Fear-checks - and I lost count of how many he failed but it was a silly number statistically speaking (this alone poured loads of sand in his machinery!).
Naturally a shame you forgot the Lore Attribute of Tzeentch. I guess that's understandible though, seeing as we Daemon Players have gotten very used (by now) to not having any Attributes for our Lores. Quite a lot of spells went off though, so it's reasonable to assume you would have had at least 2-3 'extra' PD sprinkled out over those phases.
I gather from what you've said so far that nothing really jumped out at you guys as 'unfair' or over-powered? Do you remember which items it was that Scott ultimately raised an eyebrow over (before being the told the cost etcetera)? I imagine, as things turned out, that losing his General to that Blade of Entropy must have been quite a blow (my initial impression is that that's the instance when the battle started looking really one-sided). Then again, just another example of the dice being against him in this game.

What's your take on Blade of Entropy compared to Balesword for the GUO? Would you sit them next to each other or is one clearly better than the other?

I'll re-read the report in a bit and let it sink in a bit more. Cheers.

EDIT
Btw, at the top of page 1 I have started a little compilation of our play-test games.. 2 so far!