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

[DaemonReign]

*phew*

Furious Upgrade

My 'sigh of relief' at the top of this post is with relation to the intellectual capital I had invested in my last post. If I had not had help, I would never have been able to calculate those numbers - but it's a good thing we did!

So now that we're seeing the same results on excel:

It is true that the average damage increase with this upgrade is roughly comparable to the bonus of having an additional hand-weapon. So 1pts might seem appripriate. However, since the upgrade also gives the 'off' chance of actually scoring much more hits compared to the actual Attacks of the unit - I still think 2pts is probably a good place to start.

Other than that, it's in the spirit of the game as Jervis describes it, I think it's a good upgrade. Keep rolling those 6's!!

But the potential of rolling like 15 6's (out of your pool of ~40 [horde] attacks) - as opposed to rolling the average of ~6 6's (re-rolls accounted for) and be 'slightly underwhelming' (2,5 compared to 3,3 extra kills) compared to an Extra Hand Weapon... Well, both me and the Dwarf-player who helped me with the math thinks 2pts/model is a good place to start.

If it proves to be 'meh' in Playtesting, we can reduce the cost!

Daemon Chains
You're right JonathanC, I got a little creative there with what RealVeon was actually saying. Still:
I think the solution to the (in my mind relevant observation RealVeon brought up) question is simply that we let the Daemon Chains effect "Models that have the ability to Channel Power Dice".
We could also make it strictly about "generating" Power Dice (i.e. without 'Channeling') - like The RealVeon first suggested - but keep it only dealing with Power Dice, i.e.
"Models that can generate Power Dice in any way."

That will include the stuff Khorne would hate(!), and would exclude inappropriate stuff!

I personally think we should limit it to models that can Channel Power Dice, in conclusion.

Must get back to some in-depth hobbying (basing a bunch of models I bought via EasternBarbarian as we speak!). I'll be checking in later as usual!

********************************************************************
EDIT
*Hm..* Perhaps JonathanC is right the 'new' Furious Upgrade ought to be one point per model..
This upgrade keeps changing the potential combat output of the unit as we traverse the span of 'minimum unit size' (10+ models) and 'horde-size' (30+ models).
An Additional Handweapon is a more 'definate' buff statistically speaking (+10 attacks for a Horde) while the 'new' Furious Upgrade has the theorethical 'chance' of yeilding +40 Hits (assuming you roll a straight suit of 6's with all your attacks).

Well, all I'm gonna say is I've thought some more about this since yesterday and I'm no longer sure about the appropriate pointcost. I suspect that 1pts/model would make this upgrade a bit of a no-brainer (perhaps?) where-as 2pts/model might make this 'Upgrade' a little bit too costly (especially for the smaller units of Daemonettes where Extra Hand Weapon would have been better compared to the upgrade).

As we deduced last night the 'average' bonus of Extra Hand Weapon is slightly better - assuming you roll those ~6 6's per 40 attack-rolls (hitting on 3's with re-rolls) - however, as soon as you roll (say) 12 6's, or 18's, you actually start dishing out more 'hits' than you had Attacks to begin with.

I wish LAV-Kitsune would have been more specific about the 'synergy-problems' he concluded that this upgrade had. It doesn't seem to me that it really changes what Augments (etcetera) are usable on Daemonettes. I mean Occam's Mindrazor is always going to be awesome on them really..
I was joking with my buddy the other day saying 'imagine' you had the new Furious Upgrade on Daemonettes, and then cast Occam's Mindrazor, Birona's Timewarp, and Enchanted Blades on that unit, and then you have a bit of luck and roll nothing but 6's for hitting:
A Horde of Daemonettes under those circumstances would hence deal ~100 wounds on a WS4 T3 enemy.

******************************************************************
EDIT
Man the weather would have been perfect for another playtest-game today, too bad Brynolf was held up at his shop.

I was talking last night to my other buddy about setting up a little test-game this weekend though. We're talking about trying out the new VC book this time, and perhaps playing a 3000pts game so that we have the option of playing indoors.

Nothing is for certain yet. But I thought I'd mention it!

EDIT
Spent some time editing the Designer's Notes just now. Added mention of an "Appendix D - Review of Playtesting" in the Table of Contents, most notably, and cleaned up some minor details in the text.

We basically have the Army Book Sections to review still.

EDIT
Actually, strongly concidering just re-writing those Army Book Sections of the Designer's Notes pretty much all together. They seem kind of superflous don't they? They are just repeating what's already in the pdf.

I am thinking more along the lines of writing some more philosophical descriptions of "how we worked" or "how we thought" when we were going through these sections.. explaining more about the general concept of our edits.. rather than just repeating them as though that will make them look any more valid..

[TheRealVeon]

Ok, here's the latest pdf.

http://www.mediafire.com/?wqf928z2o8s7ajz

Finally.

I made a few minor changes to a few gifts. Mostly just saying things like "in close combat" like for the Allure of Slaanesh as an example. And I changed the Standard of Chaos Glory to say "All friendly units within 12" gain the Stubborn special rule" just to clear that up. If anything has been changed inappropriately, please let me know.

I also added the Furious rule as follows: Every 6 rolled To Hit in close combat allows the Daemonettes and Alluress in the unit to immediately make an additional Attack. These additional Attacks do not benefit from the Furious special rule. I crunched my own numbers and found that the difference between an automatic hit and an additional attack was only about half an unsaved wound on average, so this is just the version I went with. If anyone feels that it should instead be an auto hit, let me know.

As a side note, when I ran the numbers I only came up with a two to three kill difference on average with the Furious upgrade. I don't know how Kitsune arrived at 19 other than he misunderstood what we were talking about. Maybe he thought the extra attacks could go on and on, like the Tomb King Colossus. Anyway, I put a note in saying that the extra attacks only happen once.

I added the Furious rule to the Daemonettes, Seeker Chariot and the Seekers. For the Daemonettes and the Seekers its at 2 points, but we should talk about what it should be for the Seeker Chariot. Furious replaces the Rending Claws which were just at their Daemonic Gift price of 10 points. I didn't change that, but I don't feel that 4 (2 Daemonettes) attacks with Furious is worth 10 points. Maybe 5. Also, the Seekers have the new Furious, but they can also still get the Rending Claws. Is this what we want? Unfortunately there aren't really any good gifts we can give them instead, so the claws may have to stay. I left them alone on the Herald and Keeper since they seem fine there.

Finally, I suggest that everyone check out any specific items they want to make sure have been changed/updated. If there was anything you really wanted to have fixed/corrected, look that up because I may have forgotten it. Thanks.

[DaemonReign]

Greets TheRealVeon, as always it's a pleasure to hear from you!

Sounds like you've been mostly fixing good little details, I'll look over the new pdf over the course of the day of course. Added your latest version to the top of page 1 too.

The Furious Upgrade
I'm feeling like a douche over here seeing as you just went through the trouble of uploading a new version of the pdf, but I sincerely believe that this Furious upgrade should be the 'other' version discussed. I.e.

Every 6 rolled To Hit in close combat by the Daemonettes and Alluress in the unit counts as 2 hits instead of 1.

My reasons:
- Simplicity of resolution! It's just a waay more elegant mechanic. No need for the otherwise necessary 'extra clause' specifying that you don't 're-roll the re-roll' etcetera.
- On average, and all though slightly 'better' compared to getting another attack, the 'double hits on a 6'-alternative compares a little better to having 'An Extra Hand Weapon'. The average is slightly lower (about 1 wound) but like I said before I still think 2pts/model is a good place to start because this Upgrade (as opposed to the Extra Hand Weapon) has a kind of exponential potential to cause a bucketload of hits (depending on how many 6's 'above the norm' (6) you roll - 6 sixies being the 'norm' assuming Horde formation, hitting on 3's, with re-rolls To Hit).
- So yeah: 'Double hits on a 6 To Hit' can be argued for 2pts/model, where-as I definately think 'Extra attack on a 6 To Hit' would have to be costed at 1pts/model (probably being simply worse compared to an extra Hand Weapon!).

I realize the last page got sort of confusing between me making about a thousand incomprehensive edits to my posts while Kitsune and JonathanC (initially at least) were having 'bad days' with their calculators (while I - at the same time - am so used to being wrong I could hardly believe I was right *haha*) - but still now that we're all seeing the same results in the 'math' over here I'm pretty confident that JonathanC will agree with me about the Furious Upgrade.

So aside of changing the 'mechanic' (as I discuss above!) we got the pointcosts and other variables to concider:
2pts/model looks 'just right' for Daemonettes and Seekers with regards to the Furious Upgrade ('double hits on a 6 To Hit').
For the Seeker Chariot I think you're right that 5pts/model is about right. Strictly speaking, I'd say 4pts though (two Daemonettes that gets the benefit right? Doubled cost?).
In fact, now that I think of it I am leaning toward 4pts/model for Furious on the Seeker Chariot - because the Seeker Chariot (unlike the potential Horde of Daemonettes or Seekers) will never be able to benefit from the 'exponetial potential' of rolling lots of 6's.
Actually, I'm not even sure 4pts/model is low enough because - with only 4 attacks - the upgrade is just simply going to be slightly worse compared to 'A Second Hand Weapon', isn't it?

Seekers:
I don't know about you guys, but I am a little bit uncomfortable with having both the 'new' Furious Upgrade on them as well as the Rending Claws upgrade. A fully upgraded unit in close-combat would become quite the little thought-exercise to use - is my basic reasoning. I.e. both upgrades depend on rolling 6's (one for Hitting, one for Wounding) so maybe (but only if you agree) we should try to find a suitable replacement for the 'Rending Claws' upgrade.

* Downloading the new PDF as we speak. I shall look through it (particularly the items we've discussed lately) and probably make an edit to this post not long from now.

Other Issues
Off the top of my head I can't think of anything that I would like to add or change at the moment. We were discussing those Special Rules for the Behemoth/Skullshrine, and I am looking forward to seeing how you resolved the issue of FleshHounds and their Magic Resistance, but I have no further pet-peeves of my own to bring up!

*pending edit, presumably*

EDIT
..Yes here it comes..

FleshHounds - Ok so you decided to do as JonathanC said. That's fine! No change in other words!

Behemoth
For the 'Daemon Chains' -
The mechanic currently reads like this:

For each Wizard in base contact with the Skullshrine at the start of the controlling player’s Magic phase, roll a D6. On a 5+ the Wizard takes a wound with no armour saves allowed.

As I concluded on the last page of the thread, we actually can include those Warrior Priests (and other suitable targets including all Wizards) by changing the wording of this mechanic to the following:

For each model in base contact with the Skullshrine at the start of the controlling player’s Magic phase that has the ability to channel power dice, roll a D6. On a 5+ the model takes a wound with no armour saves allowed.

This will exclude the things that JonathanC worried about (Casket of Souls, Luminarks, Hurricaniums) but include Warrior Priests. If JonathanC is still opposed to this idea then fine(!) - but given the discussion we had on the last page I would think he'd be fine with it. (?)

For the Great Icon of Khorne-
The mechanic currently reads -
All characters within 12" of the Skullshrine who serve Khorne may channel Dispel Dice. All successful attempts to channel Power Dice within 12" of the Skullshrine (by friend or foe) must be re–rolled.

Now, I don't want to change the portent of this mechanic, but I would change the wording slightly:

All characters within 12" of the Skullshrine with the Mark of Khorne may channel Dispel Dice. All successful attempts to channel Power Dice within 12" of the Skullshrine (by friend or foe) must be re–rolled.

Now that I think about it, this is almost such a minute change you almost shouldn't bother with it. Did you refrain from using the word 'Mark' in order to avoid confusion with WoC-terminology?
It's kind of silly, but if we write characters "who serve Khorne" you could argue that if the General of the Army is a Bloodthirster then (arguably) all other Characters in that Army are 'serving' Khorne for the time being.

* I would delete this entry about the Great Icon of Khorne, but now that I've written it I may just as well leave it as a testament to nit-picking. It's up to you whether you can be bothered to make the change.

Daemonettes, Seekers, Seeker Chariot *re-visited*
I basically stand by my convictions stated at the start of this post. We should go with the mechanic '6 To Hit = Extra Hit' instead of the 'extra attack'-version.

And like I said, we could discuss swapping "Rending Claws" on Seekers for 'something else'. Sopoforic Musk perhaps? Or let them 'borrow' the Striders Upgrade from Fiends? Again: I'll stress that this not a 'big deal' for me, and we should only look into it if you guys feel it's sufficiently important!

* Right. That's where I stand on these issues. I'll be reading the pdf over the course of the day and I will return with more blabbering should anything jump out at me.

Cheers!

***********************************************************************
EDIT
*Reflections from looking over the PDF*
p. 33 'Bestiary Entry for Phantasm of Slaanesh'
-- Both Phantasms and Fiends have an upgrade that gives them the Strider Special Rule. The difference is merely that in the Phantasm's case it's called Sidewinder, while simply being called Strider in the case of the Fiend.
I realize the fluff-text of 'Sidewinder' wouldn't fit the Fiend (snakes of Araby..' etcetera) but still I want to air the question (for your concideration). Should we turn these separate 'names of the same thing' into ONE upgrade that could then be applicable to both the Fiend and that Phantasm??

Overview of Upgrades (General Observation)

If we look at Khorne troops, for starters, we notice that the "upgrades" are consistant between Bloodletters and Bloodcrushers, while the Bloodchariot can be said to have the 'Fury of Khorne' Gift as optional upgrade instead of the Battle-Hardened upgrade.
-- I believe we discussed this. I believe JonathanC deemed that Bloodchariots with (optional) armour save of 2+ would be 'too much'. Given that we have much more 'variety' in terms of upgrades in other Marked Sections I'm not gonna push for a change.

Nurgle Troops, in summary, look like this:
Plaguebearers - Cloud of Flies and Nurgle's Rot.
Plaguetoads - Cloud of Flies and Corpulent Bulk
Pox Riders - Cloud of Flies and Nurgle's Rot.
Beasts of Nurgle - Playful and Aura of Nurgle
-- I think this section is satisfactory. Beasts of Nurgle 'stick out' but they already have Cloud of Flies 'innately' and Nurgle's Rot wouldn't really fit them too well (or it would fit, but I don't think it would be very interesting for them).

Slaanesh Troops, then:
Daemonettes - Furious & Supernatural Sprint
Seekers - Furious & Rending Claws
Seeker Chariot - Furious & Luring Fumes
Fiends - Scorpions & Striders
Phantasm - Thrasher & Sidewinder
-- Quite a lot of diversity in this section. Again: I'm asking if it wouldn't be a good idea to combine 'Striders' and 'Sidewinder' into the same Special Rule - and secondly would it be an alternative to also swap the "Rending Claws" for Seekers so that they get the Strider-upgrade as well?
This would actually reduce the sprawl of different Upgrades in the Slaanesh section conciderably. I don't know if the diversity is a problem, either, just thinking outloud here..

Tzeentch:
Horrors - Crackling Explotions & Windcatchers
Burning Chariot - Aura of Tzeentch & Iridescant Corona
Flamers - Changebringers & Immolators
-- Given the high specialization of these units I don't think there's much that can be done in order to bring the variety down in this section.

GENERAL QUESTION ABOUT CHARIOTS
If we for example look at the Burning Chariot, at the bottom of its Bestiary Entry on p.41 we find the following sentence:
The Burning Chariot may be taken as a Character mount. If so, the Character replaces the two Pink Horror crew members.
*This sentence is also repeated for the other two chariot, of course!*
My question is whether or not it's 'clear enough' that you cannot take any upgrades for the Chariot if it's taken a Character Mount.
For example, what's currently preventing a player to argue that he can put a Herald of Tzeentch on the Burning Chariot and at the same time purchase the upgrades (Aura of Tzeentch, Iridescant Corona) from the Chariot's entry (rather than buying the gifts with the Herald's own allowance?).
We should perhaps add a simple addition to that sentence about character mounts that makes clear that you can no longer make use of those upgrades.
This may require some carefull concideration, because we do want Chariot Mounts to be able to take extra Steeds, extra Jugger, and extra Screamers (should it desire to do so!) - it's actually merely the 'crew-upgrades' that should be excempt.

[TheRealVeon]

As for the Furious upgrade, I just went with the most, um, conservative option to keep it from being too overpowered. In fact I agree with you and would like to see the automatic extra hit mostly for the sake of simplicity. Looking at my spreadsheet for it, a horde with a Herald (against WS3 T3 Sv6+) would normally do 19.11 wounds. Auto hit Furious would do 22.3 and extra attack Furious would do 21.94. That's not a lot of difference so I think Auto hit would be fine.

I also think that 2 points for it is fine. And 4 points for the Chariot upgrade is fine as well. As for the Seekers I would say that giving them Strider would be fine as a replacement for Rending Claws. Would we keep it at 2 points?

I agree that we should combine the Strider rules into one. Sidewinder wouldn't work as you say, but I don't really like the name "Striders" as well. It's too boring and identical to the actual special rule it conveys. I'm terrible at coming up with special rule names so do you have any ideas?

As for the other things:

I like giving the Hounds the Collars, but I simply deferred to Jonathan here.

As for the Skullshrine, I completely agree with you and would be happy with that wording. However, since Jonathan hasn't yet read the Empire book and its new rules for the Warrior Priests, I didn't want to make any actual changes until he's gotten a chance to check all of that stuff out. So I pretty much didn't bother to change anything except for the things we've all agreed on (Great Icon for example).

As for not saying "Mark", yes it is mostly to keep things separate for the WoC book, and also because only the Daemon Princes technically have Marks. To me personally, I always saw Marks as optional upgrades which change a neutral daemon or character to one which serves a specific god. Since something like a Bloodletter already serves Khorne, they don't then need to be Marked by Khorne in addition to that.

Part of the problem is that there is no formal way set out in the rules of identifying which daemons belong to which god. Sure everyone knows that a Great Unclean One is Nurgle's Greater Daemon, but there is nothing in the rules themselves which explicitly state this. I've tried to help with this somewhat by segregating all the daemons in the bestiary by their patron god as opposed to the official book's mish-mash of entries. Still, I would feel better about the whole concept if it were codified a little bit more.

Maybe we could have a subset of the Daemonic special rule. So Daemonic (Khorne) would cover all the rules under Daemonic but also signify which Daemons belong to Khorne. Anyway, it's just a thought and again it's pretty obvious which ones go with which god, but personally I'd like it to be a bit more formalized. But if no one else agrees then that's fine.

Finally as for the Chariots, there already is a mechanism to differentiate the crew upgrades from the chariot upgrades. It's just mentioned in the army list entries for the chariots. Specifically under the crew upgrades it says that they may only be purchased if the chariot is not being used by a Herald. I just didn't want to take up more room in the bestiary with redundant information.

[DaemonReign]

Furious Upgrade

I thought we'd agree since the 'auto-hit' idea was yours to begin with!
Excellent, I'd say implement that one straight away as I can't imagine for the life of me that JonathanC is gonna throw a fit over this one - last time he posted he was basically comparing it A Second Hand Weapon (only 1pts/model except for Choppa-wielding Orcs!) and how that second hand weapon is actually slightly better (on average) compared to even our more powerfull (and more simple) 'extra hit on a 6'-version of this upgrade.

2pts/model for Seekers and Daemonettes.
4pts/model for the Seeker Chariot.
*Done Deal!*

Consolidating the Strider-upgrade

First of all, if we replace the 'Rending Claws' (for Seekers) with a 'Strider' upgrade I think 2pts/model is probably a good cost. The Fiend of Slaanesh actually only pays 3pts/model for that upgrade currently (costing 55pts base) while the Phantasm (180pts) pays 10pts. Drawing from that one may conclude that the Strider (for Seekers) could actually be a 1pts/model upgrade - but I'd go with 2pts/model unless JonathanC pops un here and berates my idiocy!

Also: Being Cavalry.. What would the gain be for Seekers to have the Strider Special Rule? They wouldn't be able to march over obstacles without taking Dangerous Terrain tests, right? All it would really give them is the ability to run 'unharmed' throw a swamp (or such) for example? Right?
Or would the Strider Special Rule actually make them the only Cavalry in the game able to jump freely over fences and such things? Do you know?! Because I am unsure myself over here. *hehe*

As for what to call the Strider upgrade (and I agree wholeheartedly with you that 'Striders' is quite boring!), well we could just keep the name 'Sidewinder' (I guess..) and simply reword the fluff-text to be more general (i.e. no mention of 'snakes' as that was directed specifically for the Phantasm!).

Sidewinders - Some Slaanesh Daemons are endowed with reflexes and dexterity that trumps even the 'normal' grace of Slaanesh's minions, making them speed even faster across the battlefield.

Something like that?

And then, if we think of a better suited name (than Sidewinder!) we can always just insert that later. Are you with me?

Collars of Khorne for FleshHounds
*haha* Well I told you to make the change if you felt that way man! I agree with you it would be more consistant with how we've structured the rest of this re-write, and even though JonathanC prefered to keep it 'as now' he even said himself that he'd be all right either way.

Skullshrine, Daemon Chains
JonathanC's worry was that we'd create a wording that would include a bunch of "non-casters" into the mechanic. He noted that you mentioned models that "generate" power dice (which could be anything including Luminarks to Caskets of Souls!), and then I narrowed it down to a wording that targets models that Channel Power Dice (which is something only Wizards and Warrior-priests do, to my knowledge) - so if we go by this wording:

For each model in base contact with the Skullshrine at the start of the controlling player’s Magic phase that has the ability to channel power dice, roll a D6. On a 5+ the model takes a wound with no armour saves allowed.

... then I think 'everyone will be happy', frankly. It's up to you if you want to wait for JonathanC to confirm this, of course - but my interpretation of the discussion I had with him on the last page tells me that his concerns ought have been satisfied by this wording.

I assume he still hasn't gotten his copy of the Empire book, but I did outline in detail how Warrior Priests work. The Channel dispel and Power dice, and they cast a set of 3 Bound Spells that are innate to them.

Mark of Khorne, etcetera
Just like you I'm a big fan of formalization, so if you want to draw something that up I wouldn't be against it really. However, for this one bit of wording I think it would suffice to say 'Khorne Daemons' - or (like I said from scratch) just leave this bit alone, because it's obvious what the intent of the wording is and you'd have to be quite hard of thinking to go all rules-lawyery with that wording as it stands.

All characters within 12" of the Skullshrine that are Khorne Daemons may channel Dispel Dice. All successful attempts to channel Power Dice within 12" of the Skullshrine (by friend or foe) must be re–rolled.

Something like that perhaps?

Chariots
Excellent! I just wanted to make sure! I actually half suspected you had already tended to this possible loophole. You know me and getting confused between the Bestiary-pages and the actual Army List.. haha

************************************************************************
EDIT
Just letting you know, I'm off to work now!

[JonathanC]

Urrrgh.......

You'll have to remind me why it is so necessary to change the Daemon Chains as I'm not seeing what the problem was with them to begin with. Also I do know about how Warrior Priests work, while my own book hasn't arrived yet I did read a friends copy and I have played against them a few times now.

Striders - again, I'm not really seeing any problem with how it was. Since its not a gift, it will have to be listed in each bestiary entry anyway. That said, if you want a consistent name how about something like Agile?

Rending Claws - again, I'm not seeing the need to replace them on the Seekers and definitely not on the Chariot. They don't all have to have identical upgrades, since the Seekers are higher status to the Daemonettes, and both are lower in status to those that ride Chariots. Therefore, their upgrades could and probably should increase in power with their status. However, if going for Striders on the Seekers, I would say it should cost just as much as it does on the Fiends because Seekers are affected by far more terrain than Fiends are.

Real Veon said:
"Part of the problem is that there is no formal way set out in the rules of identifying which daemons belong to which god. Sure everyone knows that a Great Unclean One is Nurgle's Greater Daemon, but there is nothing in the rules themselves which explicitly state this."

I agree with this, and it bugs me that we end up using descriptive terms like Mark sometimes because there is no equivalent for our army. Your suggestion of putting the mane of the Chaos god after the Daemonic rule in brackets is as good a suggestion as any I guess. Would it make the "Scion of X" rule more or less unnecessary though since it can be cleared up in the army special rules instead? Not necessarily a bad thing if that is the case as it cuts down on how many special rules we need.

Oh, and I like your new title DaemonReign, very appropriate.

[DaemonReign]

Just a quick reply, JonathanC, 'cause I'm at work and I actually have 'lots of it' on this night.

Daemon Chains
The 'problem' (if you want to call it that) was that it effected 'Wizards' in base contact. And Warrior Priests are not Wizards. Me and RealVeon feels they should be effected by the Daemon Chains. At first RealVeon talked about changing the mechanic to effect models the 'generate' Power Dice/Dispel Dice - and You replied that this would create further problems since that would include stuff like Luminarks and Caskets of Souls - and my solution to this (compromise, if you will) is to make the mechanic about models that channel power dice - because that will include Wizards and Warrior Priests alike, without including all those "non-casters" that simply 'generate' power dice/dispel dice. It would also not include Dwarf RuneSmiths even if they get to channel Dispel Dice in the future (which is likely!) - and hey if they too get to channel Power dice then they probably should be effected by the Daemon Chains.


Striders
It's true they are not Gifts and will have to be listed in each entry, as you say. But still, having 2 different name for exactly the same 'effect' seems rather unnecessary.

Removing the Rending Claws from all Slaanesh units' upgrades kinda makes sense. If we've gone that way with Daemonettes, then why not the rest of them? And Slaanesh does have an Augment that lets them Ignore armour save all-together, and Rending Claws (as we concluded before) is the only 'Gift' that does not have any synergy with the secondary re-roll to wound effect of that Augment.

Well let's discuss it furthermore if you're not onboard with these changes. And btw if you say 'Striders' for Seekers is worth 3pts/model then let's go with that - as I said before, I'm not sure myself what the effect would be (but I reckon it would be rather unique for a Cavalry unit to have the Strider Special Rule).

Damn it. I need to get back to work.

And hellz yes, the aesthethic of Bloodletters/Bloodcrushers was what made me eventually pick up Daemons (out of a short selection of races I was looking at) so in the end it was the only 'title' I found suitable!

*************************************************************************
EDIT

Taking a break.. This thread is far more important than my dead-beat job anyway.

So we're agreement about the Furious Upgrade at least. That's one thing we can cross off the list.

With regards to the Daemon Chains we really haven't changed anything - we've just included Warrior Priests in the mechanic (and too my knowledge we have not included anything else) - so your original mechanic is intact JonathanC, it's just been 'slightly' enhanced.

As for the formalization: I'm a little bit tired right now. Got stuff to do. So I'm not grasping the full scope here at the moment. Basically: Right now I don't understand how we'd make the Scion-rule obsolete.

Secondly, is it really a problem to refer to stuff like 'Khorne Daemons' - it's not like it can be misinterpreted(?). All though I agree the use of the term 'Mark' is perhaps not optimal.

Anyway, what I wanted to ask here is basically if JonathanC's basic opinion is that the Seekers and the Seeker Chariot should keep the Rending Claws upgrade. As I said before: Having two upgrades for Seekers that depend on rolling 6's (one for hitting and one for wounding) looks kinda 'not good' to me, in design terms.

For the Seeker Chariot, on the other hand, I guess we could keep the Rending Claws in order to denote the elevation of that unit!

Personally I think having the Strider Special Rule as an optional upgrade for Seekers is a pretty interesting take on things. We'd really be making "lesser" Slaanesh Daemons specialized at Speed and "lots of attacks". Kinda cool if you ask me.

**************************************************************************
EDIT
*wait a minute*

I think just got a pretty insightfull idea!
We already have the 'Scion of X' Special Rule described in our re-write!
That's all we need here! Perhaps the addition of a word or two to what this Special Rule incorporates, but after that we have everything we need!

Look, for example, at the Wording for the Great Icon of Khorne that me and TheRealVeon were discussing today:

All characters within 12" of the Skullshrine who serve Khorne may channel Dispel Dice. All successful attempts to channel Power Dice within 12" of the Skullshrine (by friend or foe) must be re–rolled.

This sentence could instead read:
All Scions of Khorne within 12" of the Skullshrine may channel Dispel Dice. All successful attempts to channel Power Dice within 12" of the Skullshrine (by friend or foe) must be re–rolled.

Now..
All we need to add to the 'Scion of X' entry at the start of the pdf is:
1 - That Greater Daemons are also Scions of their respective patron gods. (Scion of X would be added to the list of their respective Special Rules of course!)
2 - The 'Marks' which the Daemon Prince can buy would 'incorporate' the Scion of X Special Rule..
So for example the "Mark of Nurgle" would get you: Nurgle Gifts unlocked, Poison Attacks, Regen, access to the Lore of Nurgle, and also the Scion of Nurgle Special Rule.

Wouldn't this be exactly the kind of 'formalization' that you guys are talking about?
We'd then be able to refer to lesser Daemons as simply "Daemons of Khorne" or "Daemons of Slaanesh" while ALL our Characters would be specifically denoted by their affiliation (when necessary - as in the case of the Great Icon of Khorne!) by simply referring to them as "Scions of..."

Did I just get a stroke of genious? Or am I just too tired to think straight? *haha*

[TheRealVeon]

As for Rending Claws and Furious, I don't think we can put the two together with Furious causing auto hits. Say you roll a 6. That hit negates all armour and it generates an automatic extra hit which doesn't need to roll To Hit. But does it pierce armour as well? You didn't roll a 6 with it, but the hit that generated it did. So how does that work? If Furious was just an extra Attack which did roll To Hit, it would be fine, but as it currently sits, I feel that it's too confusing.

As to identifying who various daemons follow, I think Jonathan was talking about reducing the number of special rules by just getting rid of the Scion set of rules and using only the Daemonic special rule alone. So all Khorne daemons would change their Daemonic special rule to Daemonic (Khorne).

As an example of how this would work in the rules themselves, here how the second half of the Stream of Corruption spell currently reads:

The Wizard may choose to cast the spell onto any friendly character within 12". If it does so, the casting value is increased to 11+. If cast onto a non–Nurgle character, the target takes a Strength 3 hit with no Armour saves allowed immediately after the spell is resolved.

This would then change to:

The Wizard may choose to cast the spell onto any friendly character within 12". If it does so, the casting value is increased to 11+. If cast onto a character without the Daemonic (Nurgle) special rule, the target takes a Strength 3 hit with no Armour saves allowed immediately after the spell is resolved.

As for Scion (or lack of) and characters joining units, we'd just have to say that characters can only join units with the same Daemonic (whatever) special rule. That's of course not exactly what we'll say, but you get the idea.

[DaemonReign]

That's a very astute observation about Rending Claws & Furious. I would say it's the final nail in the coffin with regard to the notion of having these two upgrades 'next to each-other' on a profile. The 'extra attack'-version is just less elegant (& less 'viable' at that) compared to the 'extra hit'-version, and the primary reason it was thought of (in the first place) was in order to find a suitable replacement to Rending Claws.

Zooming out from the Slaanesh Section, our 'new' Furious Upgrade would become the 'defining' upgrade of Slaanesh Units - in the same way that 'Blessing of the Bloodgod' and 'Cloud of Flies' are 'norm rather than exception' when it comes to upgrades in the Khorne/Nurgle section.

I think that is starting to look pretty neat&tidy personally. Brynolf actually had a valid point in complaining about the Rending Claws upgrade, and [again] we do have a Slaanesh Lore Augment that 'cancels armoursave' - on top of not even having a reasonable synergy with Rending Claws - so I think the changes we're discussing here are definately for the better.

JonathanC mentioned the 'hierarchy' between units, the argument being that the Seeker Chariot should be more favored compared to Seekers, who in turn stand taller than Daemonettes.
Well I agree, naturally - but I actually think that our latest suggestions for Slaanesh upgrades encompasses that concept as well as looking more consistant from a more holistic viewpoint:
Daemonettes - Furious (the 'normative' upgrade) and Supernatural Sprint
Seekers - Furious (normative), already have Swiftstride, but can be further specialized by becoming Striders (like Fiends and Phantasms - so arguably denoting a step up in the hierarchy).
Seeker Chariot - Furious (just as the Bloodchariot has 'Blessing of the Bloodgod') and 'Luring Fumes' (the conciderably more expensive Gift that denotes how the Chariot is even more favored!)

On this note, I'll add that what I believe is 'standing out' in this equation is actually the 'Fury of Khorne' upgrade for the Bloodchariot. If we are to follow the logic of upgrades becoming better as we move toward more elevated unit-choices, then 'Fury of Khorne' is suddenly looking rather 'meh' (indeed, the reason we inserted it was because 'Battle-Hardened' was deemed too good!)
- I'm not saying that we should insert Battle-Hardened for the Bloodchariot. Granted, I sort of fail to understand why it would be a problem (even if it's that good we should be able to find an appropriate cost for it, no?) - What I am saying is; simply that we should replace 'Fury of Khorne' with another Gift from the Khorne Section that would cost 25-30pts (to bring it more in line with the 'Luring Fumes' and, indeed, both the upgrades available to the Horror-crew of the Burning Chariot!).

I hope the above paragraphs of text were not too confusing.

Scion vs Daemonic (*insert name*)
All right now I understand. I guess we could incorporate the 'Scion'-rule into the Daemonic Special Rule. I'm not sure personally how much is gained by it - what we're essentially doing is moving a set of (much needed) new rules (the Scion Special Rule) from a separate paragraph to the same heading as Daemonic. The amount of things to keep track of would remain largely the same.

Doesn't it sound 'better' to refer to a Daemon as, e.g., a Scion of Nurgle rather than writing Daemonic (Nurgle)?
Would the 'brackets' even be necessary? Couldn't we just write under the 'Daemonic Heading' that Characters of a certain patron can only join units of their own affiliation?

I guess I'm just having initial trouble parting with the 'Scion of X' Special Rule that we've deviced! Ultimately I cannot think of any 'hard' reason why the 'Daemonic (*insert name*)' wouldn't work. I just think it's looks kind of dry in comparison, but you guys are probably correct that if it means we can remove an entire parapgraph of rules-text it's probably worthwhile to do it that way.

By the way, I mentioned that I think we should replace the 'Fury of Khorne' Gift (for the Bloodchariot) with 'something else'. The Gift that comes to mind for me, at this time, is actually the Firestorm Blade.
- It's costed in the region of 25-30pts that would add consistency (as I argue above).
- It gives something 'unique' to the Khorne Section (save for Characters with the same Gift, of course) in giving the Bloodchariot 'specialization' for hunting regenerating Monsters like the Hydra or A-bomb.

I suspect JonathanC is going to roast me for this suggestion. *haha* If 'Battle-Hardened' is 'off the table' - which I assume it still is - then I'd however say that Firestorm Blade would be the next most suitable option. Unless completely broken, of course.

EDIT
*haha* I just realized that 'although' is the correct way of writing it, where-as 'all though' is just something I've made up 'cause I like Swedish meatballs.. Sorry JonathanC, I fixed that in the Designer's Notes now..

[TheRealVeon]

Well what I was thinking about with respect to Daemonic (Chaos God) was how Hatred and Strider work. They both have a generic version which applies to everything and more specialized versions which only apply in specific instances. So like how we have Hatred (High Elves) we could also have Daemonic (Slaanesh). I think putting it in a format which is familiar and works well will go a long way to explaining how the classification system operates in a very intuitive manner.

We could just leave it as Scion but then we'd have: 1) To explain the concept more fully; 2) Have yet another special rule; 3) Give Scion of X to every unit in the book. I already tried that last part by giving Daemonic Rivalry to all the Characters and Jonathan wisely pointed out that it works better by simply folding the concept into the overarching Daemonic special rule. I'm simply saying we should do the same with this idea as well.

As for Fury of Khorne on the Blood Chariot, I think the underlying design concept when it comes to upgrades should be whether or not it fits with the design of the unit, not an arbitrary point price. Devastating Charge just seems like something that goes well with a Khornate chariot. It also ties well with the Flesh Hounds who now also have Devastating Charge. Even if we decided to change it, Firestorm Blade seems more like a close combat, I'm-fighting-in-a-challenge sort of upgrade, not something that would fit well with the chariot. Personally, I'd say we can leave it as is.

[DaemonReign]

Good points you're making TheRealVeon!

And forget I mentioned the Firestorm-blade (for the Bloodchariot) - I agree it's not perfect. It would have looked neat if the Bloodchariot had one upgrade that was a bit more expensive, in my opinion, but Firestorm is the only gift in the right price-range - and since that Gift doesn't really fit I guess we should just keep the Devastating Charge.

I'm hoping that means you largely agree with the rest of what I was saying about the unit-upgrades. Basically, with the latest edits we've discussed, they are starting to look pretty well-rounded.

And yes, let's go with incorporating the 'scion-business' into the Daemonic Special Rule (just like Rivalry!). You're right - it's better design. *I just like the sound of "scion of..." - I guess*

[TheRealVeon]

I forgot to mention the Strider upgrades for the Seekers and Fiends. Since not having to take Dangerous Terrain tests is kind of a significant change for cavalry and Monstrous Creatures, I'd say we should up their price a bit for each of them. Having a fast cavalry unit like the Seekers come crashing straight through the woods without nary a thought to their safety isn't too scary, but with the Fiends maybe a bit more. Both of them pretty much ignore all the terrain of the board with this upgrade.

So I would say up the cost a little bit, maybe 5 points a piece, ore restrict it to just Strider (Woods). That makes a bit more sense anyway. If your super sleek and agile, you can dodge and weave through the trees pretty easily, but that's not going to help you get through quicksand and boggy marshes. So I would say make it Strider (Woods).

[DaemonReign]

Strider effects Cavalry (Seekers) quite a bit. For Fiends (Monstrous Beasts) the difference isn't that big though - unless I am completely remembering things the wrong way.

I failed to address this issue before today, but I'd say that JonathanC's assessment on the Strider-upgrade is ultimately what I'd go for. I.e. 3pts/model for both Fiends and Seekers.

Already at 3pts/model (speaking of Seekers specifically) I think the 'total cost' will be sufficiently steep to discourage large units of Seekers with this upgrade - making it something you'd idealy give a small unit for being able to quickly dart through forrests/over fences etcetera.

I mean: I think the cost of the Strider-upgrade for Fiends was duly concidered before. With Seekers the benefit is far greater of course, which is why the same cost might be appropriate despite the actual model being much less expensive/killy etcetera.

I guess I'm ultimately a rather poor judge of these things. You suggest raising the cost to 5pts/model for both Fiends and Seekers, then? Let's keep in mind that Seekers are currently concidered rather sub-par, and we've certainly not given them any conciderable buffs (so perhaps Strider-ability will be a good thing to increase their specialization?).

I'm just not sure man. 5pts/model may be appropriate, but I feel it's a bit much.

As for the name.. JonathanC suggested 'Agile' - which is a good title although perhaps we should find a synonyme to 'agile' with a bit more epic-ness to it. (?) I'll go searching for alternatives right now, see if anything comes up..

EDIT
How about the word 'Nimble'?
I must say I like it more than 'Agile' at any rate.
EDIT
Perhaps 'Embellished' (synonym for 'gracefull') could also be an alternative?
EDIT
Another word that sounds kind of cool with a close-by meaning is 'Vivacious'. I think perhaps that would be a good candidate..(?)
EDIT
Found some more possible 'titles': Virtuosity, Deftness, Sprightliness, Celerity..
And it could be a combination of words.. Perhaps some of these examples I've gathered will spark an idea for you guys..?

[TheRealVeon]

In light of us not given them any outright buffs, maybe keeping the prices low is a good idea. However, that means that they pretty much have to buy an upgrade to even be considered competitive.

Anyway, at the very least, I still think that giving them blanket Strider is, if not undercosted, then unfluffy. I would be fine with Strider (Woods) at that price, unless someone has a really good explanation/reason for Strider (everything) at 3 points being appropriate. In the main rulebook itself, under the rule it says that things with blanket strider are rare. Of course, if I'm just voted down, that's fine too. But I mean, being agile and nimble is going to help you run around trees, but it's not going to make you walk on water.

Of all the names you've suggested, I actually like "Nimble" the most. It's simple yet it conveys exactly why they have the rule with one word.

PS I don't know what thesaurus you are using, but "embellished" isn't really a synonym for graceful. Something is embellished if it is given a lot of extra (and possibly unnecessary) decoration or ornamentation.

[DaemonReign]

I was just using some synonyms.com site that I had googled up. I'm sure I just misunderstood what the heck the page was doing at the time..

I share your concerns about the Seekers with the Strider Special Rule. I'm simply not sure giving Strider to Cavalry is a proper line of thinking to begin with.

If we make it about Forrests *only* then we're back where we started essentially - one specific upgrade (and title) for each unit (Seekers, Fiends & Phantasm) - Well, Fiends and Phantasms would still be able to share 'theirs' of course.

I've actually been thinking for the last few hours that we should perhaps constrain ourselves and only grant the 'universal' Strider Special Rule Upgrade to Fiends & Phantasm (and I agree that 'Nimble' is a good title for that by the way) - and then simply drop the idea on Seekers.

They would get the Furious Upgrade (double the hit on a 6) and something else (?)
Frankly, I'm thinking 'Daemonic Robes' (the Gift) at this point. I suppose that would be worth 2-3pts/model and it would actually be something you'd concider given how damn fragile they are.
Another alternative that I could get behind would be 'Sopoforic Musk' as an upgrade for Seekers, and come to think of it (if we do this!) then I would seriously concider swapping 'Luring Fumes' (on the Seeker Chariot) for Sopoforic Musk as well.

'Luring Fumes' for the Seeker Chariot feels to me almost like you described my idea for Firestorm Blade(s) on the Bloodchariot - like a Gift meant for close combats and characters rather than a unit.. But maybe it's just me.

I am in no mood to vote you down about the Strider business, at any rate. I simply don't think we should make it a specific Strider (i.e. Forrests only) quite simply because we have not done so with the other units that have Strider as an upgrade. Given this - I would actually rather opt for chosing an entirely different upgrade for them (Daemonic Robes and Sopoforic Musk being the candidates that I get off the top of my head).