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

Updated page 1 and yeah *gosh* this version of the PDF runs a helluvalot more smooth than the previous ones. I haven't checked every single 'automatic page reference' yet but the ones that I did try worked just fine.

It amazes me that the file-size has dropped to such a degree. Anyways.. Let's get down to business:

Glean Magic

Ok I don't want to rock the boat over here.. But I'm honestly having a bit of a pet peeve with the basic premise of this spell. We made it into a Hex - which is fine - but the part I don't like is the fact that we simply stipulate that the range is 24".

The original spell, if I rememeber correctly, doesn't have a range-requirement - instead it deals with Line of Sight (basically).

So I ask you, gentlemen, how unorthodox would it really be to say that Yes, this is a Hex - BUT - The requirement for using this spell is Line of Sight.
Perhaps I am just being conservative, but it somehow just makes more sense to me.

All right, so below is my suggestion for how to re-Word the first paragraph of the mechanical description of Glean Magic.. I've also attempted to include the 'variety' of using the Eye of Tzeentch's 'Conduit of Magic' Special Rule, as well as making implicitly clear that you will benefit from the Attribute of Tzeentch (and NOT any Attribute associated with the Spell that you are Stealing!).
I don't know if this solves the irritation you're feeling over this issue RealVeon, let's just see what you guys Think:


Glean Magic is a hex spell which targets an enemy Wizard visible to the caster. If it is successfully cast, the caster may choose any one of the spells known by the target Wizard; the unboosted version of that spell is immediately cast by the casting Wizard (without rolling any additional dice) exactly as if any other spell from the Daemon Lore of Tzeentch had been cast. Note that the opposing player may try to dispel Glean Magic, but once successfully cast the stolen spell is cast automatically with no dispel-attempts allowed.

EDIT
And it goes without saying if you guys think we better keep the straight 24" range requirement (as a per the rules for a 'normal' Hex) then that would be a minor tweak to the above wording.
Like I said: I don't know how crazy the idea of having a Hex that (uniquely) relies on Line of Sight (and nothing else!) but that just makes more sense fluff-wise for Glean Magic.. Not a big deal I guess, just something that surfaced in my thinking as we kept coming back to the general topic of this particular spell.

Well I like the new pdf, much easier to skim through. Good work there RealVeon!

For Glean Magic, I think the wording as it is now is OK. I see where the issues are but I think a lot of that is down to the nature of what the spell does and how it works. Regarding the idea of changing it to requiring line of sight we could do that quite easily as it wouldn't be a too difficult to include in the wording. I just feel perhaps if we are going to use the Hex classification we should use it as per the BRB, since I can see a lot of players just reading 'Hex' and not taking in the other restrictions. The alternative is to have the spell unclassified and write all the casting restrictions beyond the standard ones into the spell. Either way, if you change it to requiring line of sight you should be aware this will change how easy it is to use the spell a lot (casting it onto Wizards in combat, or whilst in combat yourself, will become rarer).

Flames of Tzeentch gift looks fine, but is the part in brackets "(or a unit of daemons)" really needed?

Glean Magic

Changing the casting requirement from simple Range to Line of Sight is not a huge issue for me. If it complicates things more than necessary I guess it just ain't worth it.
I must say though, that I'm not seeing how people would 'just read the Hex' part of the spell description - especially if there's no Range-requirement listed. At worst, it seems, people would go: 'Hm.. That's odd, there's no range requirement for this spell, I guess I better read the finepri.. oh there it is! It's all about Line of Sight! How neat!

It would change the utility of the spell of course. On the one hand you'd be able to Glean a spell far outside the "normal" range, and on the other hand it would be less flexible. In fact, on average, just having that Hex-bubble of range is probably the 'better' alternative in competative terms.

And if JonathanC thinks the current wording is fine otherwise then I guess it's up to whether TheRealVeon can live with it. At this point, aside of the pet peeve regarding the casting requirement, I worry mostly about The Eye of Tzeentch and the Conduit of Magic Special Rule:
I think we all agree that any spell a Tzeentch Wizard gleans from an enemy Wizard should be possible to 'channel' via the Eye of Tzeentch just as if the Tzeentch Wizard had cast any other spell (?)
- I just worry this is the typical kind of question that people would immediately start bickering about at the gaming tables, requiring a FAQ.

At work at the moment, so I hope I am remembering things correctly here: We did stipulate that the Conduit of Magic could be used by any Tzeentch Wizard casting a spell, right? Because if it's all about spells from the Lore of Tzeentch then (naturally) I'm discussing a non-topic here once again.

Flames of Tzeentch
Just a humble suggestion: Perhaps just mention 'models with this gift' and refrain from mentioning anything more specific. (?)

EDIT
Corrected spelling-errors.

EDIT
And I looked at the Eye of Tzeentch Profile just now just to verify that I was making sense earlier in this post.
Ok so we got two questions here that I Think we need to Think about:
1 - Is it obvious 'enough' that if you a Glean an enemy spell from an enemy Wizard you can 'channel' that spell via the Conduit of Magic Special rule? This is probably pretty cutndry, or is it?
2 - What happens if you cast Glean Magic with irresistable force, and then decide to channel the gleaned spell through an Eye of Tzeentch? I guess [going by RAW] since it's Glean Magic that was cast irrestiable (and not the Gleaned spell!) you wouldn't have to take wounds off the Eye of Tzeentch in this circumstance.

And again: Are we Confident this is all clear enough? Or would there be threads popping up the rules-sections all over the Place?

EDIT
Heading out to set up Another test-battle right now. We haven't decided any details on this just yet. Hoping my opponant will agree to field OnG since that's an 8th Ed book, but it could turn out to be anything really. Not even sure about the game-size either. Let's just hope the weather doesn't get wet, and I should have a Little battlereport ready for you guys by nightfall. / Cheers

EDIT
Battle Report from my latest Playtest game is now available:
CLICK HERE!

EDIT
24/7/12

Well these are kind of exciting times for us Daemon players with the next White Dwarf evidently containing lots of Daemonic stuff. Personally I have slightly mixed feelings About it - the whole issue with a rules-patch in the WD simply scares because it seems most of the feedback GW would be getting about our army is simple "whining" so it would surprice me if the Changes they make now are actually warranted/fair.. Well we'll just have to wait and see.

New models being released is cool of course, but for me personally it's a bit nuts because I already have quite a lot of Everything. It's awesome that they are released new Fiend-models (if that's really the case!) but I already have 18.. New Flamers is cool too, but I have Close to 40 already.. Same with Nurglings.. And I don't need any more Lords either.

Not entirely comfortable with the SoulGrinder moving into Fantasy. Everything about that really makes sense - already existing model, no fluff-reason why it wouldn't be able to manifest just like any other Daemon, etcetera.. I guess I was just dreaming of something 'brand new' instead.
... and say what you want, but the SoulGrinder is just a bit too futuristic-looking somehow.. I just don't Think it'll fit the aesthethic of Fantasy.. Oh well..

Some Reflections from PlayTesting

Supreme Temptations
Now.. Every spell of every Lore shouldn't be a no-brainer. But this spell is sort of bugging me, because I have been looking at it throughout a couple of games now and the situation where it's Worth casting it doesn't seem to manifest really.. Perhaps it's got a lot to do with my general archetype as a gamer (yes, I am your standard run of the mill 6-dice kind of guy!) where-as my magic phases tend to be pretty direct (all or nothing!) with very Little subtletly..
But Supereme Temptations feels a little too 'meh' somehow. When is it really Worth casting? Sure you can make yourself stubborn.. but wouldn't you rather cast an Augment that actually makes you Win combat?
And sure you can deny Inspiring Presence for the enemy, but at the same time you're "giving away" Stubborn..

Wondering if we shouldn't add "Hold Your Ground" to the Mechanic here. Perhaps with a slight increase to casting value. Basic problem with that, which I can see myself anyway, is that it starts to look a bit rules-creepy:

"Unit becomes stubborn but may not use Inspiring Presence or Hold Your Ground."

I don't know.. What do you guys Think?

Anyway:
I have pretty high hopes of getting Another test-battle off over the course of the next two Days. I'll be back with more on that.

EDIT
I Think, with these impending Daemon models that are to be released - and more importantly this rumoured lefleat of minor rules-changes - that we're looking at a principal decision with respect this Project:

Do we incporporate these Changes to our re-write? Or do we keep spinning our own Wheels, as it were?
There's a Slaanesh Chariot coming, for example. It'll be interesting to see if it's a Rare Choice or a Special Choice. If the latter is case then we really haven't been that far off in our "predictions" - although I read on Whineseer that the standard chariot will have a Crew of 4 Daemonettes instead of the mere 2 that is in our re-write.
Another rumoured change deals with Flamers, whereby they are appearantly going to be dropped to S4 (instead of S5) and - between us guys - if that is the only change I'll be really flabbergasted because it's just a empty (silly) gesture. As if their Strength value in Close combat was the problem (I mean: even to the people who whines about them, the ETC crowd, this must seem like a joke).
... Dropping their attacks to 1 or their wounds, or their number of shoots fired or firing range - all those things would have been definate nerfs that would have made a difference. I'm not saying I would have been happy with that, on the contrary, but if 'S4 for Flamers' is an indication I Think we'll be in for a couple of laughs when we actually see these new rules.
But I digress..

Back to the main issue of whether or not to "tag along" with these Changes or keep the "integrity" of our Project come hell or high Waters. (?)

Personally I've really gotten infatuated with playing with these new rules we have concocted. Assuming we keep a steady course and continue to refine "what we have" rather than trying to blend into what GW is doing I don't see myself ever picking up an official book again. There's just so much stuff that I'd sorely miss. Like swapping any of our "made up" Rare Choices for the SoulGrinder (sure the SoulGrinder is nice and all, but the Phantasm and Eye of Tzeentch beats it all to hell as far as I am concerned).

One way of looking at it is that we have submitted our work to Games Workshop, in a "take it or leave it" kind of way. We are of Little use to them feeding their own inventions back to them really - wouldn't you agree? If they want Flamers to be S4 instead of S5 that's fine, no reason for us to underscore the Point really as they clearly made up their mind.

I'm not too familiar with the traditions of these White Dwarf releases. I guess JonathanC will be able to better answer the question whether or not Changes appearing in the White Dwarf are always followed by the same Changes appearing in a coming Army Book.
Essentially - whatever we get next month.. Is that what we're supposed to get used to, or should we view it as transitory rules, almost experimental??

I don't have time to respond to your battle (I will later tonight hopefully), but I wanted to give my thoughts on where we should go from here on our project.

I originally was going to suggest we incorporate cost changes and stat changes only. Adding brand new units (the Hellflayer and Exalted chariot specifically and oh yeah, the Soulgrinder) is a bit too close to plagiarism for my taste. At this point it is a bit clear that our idea of what the next book should be and GW's idea is a bit different. That's fine, I really didn't expect anything else, but we should strive to maintain a certain level of professionalism (as much as a amateur project can have).

And just downloading GW's new models and rules into our book goes against that mentality in my opinion.

That was my thought before seeing the new rules. Now I definitely think we should keep things separate, even stat and points changes.

For example, Flamers are Special. Exactly what we decided against. They're S4, 5 points more expensive and their shooting attack has a whole strange new mechanic.

Example two: Screamers have gotten an boost on their profile almost across the board, making them far stronger than we ever considered in our efforts to avoid wishlisting. And they're only 5 points more expensive as well.

Also, the (Exalted) Alluress and Daemonettes on the chariot have a slightly different profile from our book (BS 3; why?) Also, Exalted Alluress, what is this? We were thinking of putting some infantry between Heralds and Greaters, but GW apparently feels the need to fill that wide-open vacuum between champions and Heralds.

While these aren't massive changes, in my opinion they are significant enough to upset what balance we have in our own project. Also, the whole point of your project was the make the next version of the Daemons of Chaos army book better. And since we now have DoC 7.5, we will have to re-access any balance issues as a whole once again. While they haven't changed any of the gifts or Lord and Heroes costs, adding a bunch of new meatgrinders (literally) will change the dynamic of our games.

So I would suggest playing a few games with the new models/units/rules to see how they pan out. Once we have a better grasp of what have changed, then we can figure out what we need to do with their project. We may have been, dare I say it, too conservative with our efforts.

Also, with Flamers as special, what will Tzeentch get for Rare when the new book does come out?

Well right now they are left with the [assumed] 'Tzeentch Marked SoulGrinder' (?).

Excellence in eloquence TheRealVeon. I interpret you as essentially agreeing with me!

You're perfectly right we never expected the actual Book to turn out exactly as we guesstimated.. And yeah, despite both the changes to Flamers and Screamers actually look like 'buffs' (rather than nerfs) compared to Our suggestions, I basically think we should leave them alone.

That Meatgrinder/Slaanesh Chariot wierd thing, however, could perhaps be a candidate to 'replace' Our Slaanesh Chariot in the Special Section - especially if it turns out to be a Special Choice in the WD-patch.
- It seems pretty clear 'this is the Slaanesh Chariot we're getting officially' - doesn't really our Other Chariots can't be closer to the mark (if those models are done).
I know as soon as you add a single 'actual unit' the integrity of our work is immediately sacrificed - at least to an extent - so I'm really undecided personally even on the Meatgrind-Slaanesh contraption.

Just thinking out loud here.. The damn model is pretty cool though (IMO).

In the middle of prepping the next test-battle as we speak. So can't linger.. It'll be 10k DE vs DoC.

Well, if they keep the background for the Soul Grinder consistent with 40k it won't be getting Marks of Chaos.

Of course none of us seriously expected to get the Phantasm, Behemoth and Eye when the next book came around, but it seems clear that our brainstorming has gone in a bit of a different direction to GW's. It seems apparent now that this Hellflayer is the next book's version of the Phantasm (i.e. the new Slaanesh unit), and that the new Khorne and Tzeentch units in the next book will be combi-kits with their chariot models. That pretty much rules out anything like the Behemoth it seems (a shame, as I think this had the most potential for being turned into an actual model given its dual nature), but I remain stupidly optimistic that an Eye/Burning Chariot combi-kit is possible. Just think about it - if the star is made up of several sections then the same parts could easily be reconfigured to make up the chariots body!

Sadly though, the introduction of the Soul Grinder has pretty much guaranteed we won't get anything like the Eye I think, as they both fulfill very similar roles (mobile shooty monster).

As to whether thse changes will definitely follow suit in the next book, well their isn't much precedence to this. A lot of it seems to depend on how soon the next book follows the update. The new VC units were incorporated more or less unchanged after 6 months, but the temp WoC list (which also lasted about 6 months) was a bit different, and the 40k Blood Angels WD Codex was massively different (but that was about 3 years in development and they had an edition change in the meantime). These changes indicate to me they are definitely thinking of going that way, but if the book is at least a year out its probably not set in stone either, so enough time to write in and complain about/praise the changes!

Anyway, I agree with almost everything RealVeon has said for pretty much the same reasons. Better to play a game or two with the changes first (or at least get feedback from others on this forum who have) before deciding on implementing anything. For one thing, I don't agree with the Flamer changes and think if change was needed they went in the wrong direction. My only disagreement is the comment on plagarism, as a lot of our re-write is copied straight from the the current book or Forge World with little or no changes as it is. And yes, we were definitely quite conservative in some areas.
--------------------------------------------------

To answer some of DaemonReign's questions from earlier:

Supreme Temptations - you seem to have forgotten here that it does effect Hold Your Ground! too. I think its main use as a hex will be on units that are ranked so deep (Goblins, Skaven, Empire, etc) that they are bound to be steadfast after combat results anyway. It also makes failed fear tests and some Slaanesh spells more effective. As an augment, its useful for units that are likely to be hammered by combat res but you just need them to hold firm. Its also one of the few augments available to mono-Slaanesh armies.

Glean Magic vs Conduit
My opinion on this is that if you use the conduit to cast Glean Magic through, then the spell you choose has to also be cast through the conduit. If the wizard cast Glean Magic from himself without using the conduit, then the spell he chooses has to be cast from himself and can't benefit from the conduit ability. Should be pretty simple.

I was brainstorming ideas to update our 40k Daemon rules to 6th ed, but in light of the upcoming changes this will obviously have to wait a bit longer. The crazy thing is, whilst the Flamer changes in WFB are definitely a nerf, they have buffed them massively in 40k when they were a pretty decent unit already (-1 save but +1 Wound and 12pts cheaper!! ).

Supreme Temptations

Oh yes JonathanC.. Silly old me. Forgot Hold your Ground! was included already. Sorry.

Flamers

Definately a nerf?? Ok, I'll take your word for it.. But being a Special it seems to me that you can spam them like never before. (?) Sure - even more random than before, but if you have them in their 30's firing you're bound to do serious damage on occassion.

Glean Magic vs Conduit

I guess your interpretation is ok JonathanC, although I would have prefered it if Gleaned spells could be cast via the Conduit of Magic regardless of whether Glean Magic was cast through the Eye or not.
Either way, as far as I've read things it isn't really clear.. And even if you show me to lines of text I might have missed the portent of - I'd still say it's unclear enough for stupid people (like me) to ask about it, in that case..

I'm not seeing it as clearly as you seem to be, that's all.

The Patch WD release

Well it seems pretty much decided then. For the time being (at least until we get some of the new models painted and ready! haha) we simply refrain from taking too much of an impression from what GW just gave us with respect to this project.

Here's the list I am planning on using tomorrow:

It's 9999/10000 points I think..
I'll make a batrep in another thread as usual, but it'll take longer time around guys because I simply won't have time to administer it all within the coming days. Looks like Dark Elves in opposition this time, but any freak occurance in a few hours may make it Empire/Dwarves instead.. So I really don't know in advance this time.
Also: If it rains tomorrow there'll be no game at all. So take this with a pinch of salt still!

EDIT
Damn it.. Must have been tired last night because I forgot some stuff that are also in the above posted army list (amendments appear red in the original list)

*****************************************************************************
The Dark Elf List:
I'll write it up, and leave anyone guessing as to what happened. It was a great game, more on that later..

I'm going to make an abbreviated BattleRep this time, so a bit less pics and more words. We'll see when I have time for that. It was another good game though. Things were going well for DE until Turn 3 when I managed to turn it all around and make it to a really even might all the way to the very end.

I'll try to flesh this out as soon as possible.

EDIT
Here's a little teaser *haha*
Army-shot before we started deploying:


And here's a shot of the table before we started deploying:
(It's a 14' table I think.. A Wizard's Tower and 3 Buildings, BaneStone and Elven Waystone)

And in the uppermost end of the battlefield there was a Nehakharan Sphynx:

One my gaming-buddies just finnished painting that one, pretty nice if you ask me!
**************************************************************************
EDIT
VIEW FULL BATTLEREPORT

EDIT
Soulgrinders huh.. Well lads that pretty much settles it, our Experimental Rules are going to be the Official Rules around my gaming-group for a long time it seems, so you can look forward to a consistant flow of battle-reports.. *haha*

Well, I'll wait for you to digest my latest playtest-game I guess. Looking forward to hearing what you have to say about that one. I really feel like I am starting to get a better feel for what we've done here.

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

All right so I've played a couple of games and I was thinking I'd make a Quick rundown of the Gift-sections - because I've sat a couple of times now picking&choosing Gifts and that's shed some light on which ones I actually concider when it comes down to gaming.
Part of this, perhaps, is perhaps the simple fact that we've got quite a lot of Gifts - so while I won't make definate suggestions for 'removals' I at least Think we got a couple of entries (of Gifts) that run the danger of taking up space rather than really filling an important role in the Army list:

Shared Gifts
I Think this section is looking pretty good. 'Radiance of Dark Glory' and 'Chaos Forging' we could live without (I guess) but I don't Think there's a problem with having a couple of 20pts Gifts to play around with in this section.

Khorne Gifts
We have "Bloodlust of Khorne" and "Fury of Khorne" in this section. Seems like we could live with merely 1 of these options - Another wild idea would be to bundle the mechanics together into one single 30pts Gift that gives you both Frenzy and Devastating Charge. (?)
"Aura of Khorne" - and I know it's only five Points! - is a bit counter-intuitive to me. Most Vortexes cause tests that Khorne daemons don't fear too much (like Pit of Shades or Purple Sun) and so even if you happen to roll a 6 it just isn't that great.. Bottom line is that the Character having this Gift is less than likely to be targetted by such spells. Not sure it needs changing.. I've just found that if I have five Points to spare I'd actually take the Torment Blade (or definately "Scrutinous Gaze") instead [from the other Gift Sections] so we might be looking at a minute imbalance here.

Nurgle Gifts
I would personally prefer it if we moved the resolution of Nurgle's Rot to "the start of each close-combat phase" simply because this would streamline gameplay (I forget to resolve this Gift in the magic phases..) - and the fact that wounds caused would then Count toward combat resolution would allow us to reset the cost back to 25pts (even 30pts would be 'Worth it' for the benefit of streamlining things). Just a thought..

Slaanesh Gifts
For Luring Fumes (and again basically to make things simpler) perhaps we should make this Gift about "Attacks being targetted at the Daemon in Close combat" rather than "models in base Contact" - I Think this would be easier to keep track of, and if this change would allow a decrease to this Gift's cost (down to 25pts perhaps) it would allow for a greater variety of comboes.
Also, I really don't Think our version of "Siren Song" is Worth 25pts anymore.. just saying.. I've brought it a couple of times now and haven't been able to Place myself in a position to actually use it even once. A drop in cost by 5pts is the very least I would argue for, unless we rethink the mechanic.

Got some more random thoughts, that I will account for later.

EDIT
I also Think we might as well remove the unit-caps for Nurglings and Screamers.
Our Flamers should remain 3-6 of course - but Nurglings and Screamers might as well be 2+ period. Nobody's gonna take 12+ Screamers to a unit either way, so that part is pointless - and unless I am mistaken there's hardly anything broken about Fielding a unit of 40 Nurglings either. (?)

I'm just popping in here to say I have noticed your edits and hope I will have time to address them properly in the next few days. I will say I think the size cap should definitely stay for Nurglings, primarily because they are scouts and can be stubborn if they find a forest to deploy in.

I still haven't fully digested all the rules updates via WD, and certainly haven't had a chance to test them yet (next week, hopefully). However, it did get me thinking that rather than ignore it we can use it as an opportunity to review these units again, and maybe put forward suggestions to GW that show them how they should have updated these units, and how the new units could have been made better. Basically acknowledging what they have done but saying "wouldn't this be a better way to do it?"

I assume you mean (based on what we said earlier about whether or not to implement the patch into our re-write) that we make suggestions on behalf of the patch as a Little 'side project' to our main Project:
Flamers - for example - would remain a Rare Choice in our re-write but we'd make a leaflet (haha) [sort of like our Designer's Notes] where we'd basically be saying: Ok, so you made them Special Choices, well in that case perhaps this-and-this might be a better idea.

As you were saying in Another thread (very much reflecting our re-write of course) moving Fiends or Bloodcrushers to Special would probably have been better - so one thing to definately submit to GW is simply that when a new book finally is made perhaps they could find it in their hearts to move Flamers back to Rare again, while taking Another look at what we've done with Fiends and Crushers. (?)

It's probably a bad thing, but with this latest rules-patch I've really come to concider our re-write as the Army Book that I will be using from this Point in time. I already have been using it in the last couple of games, of course, for playtesting purposes - but I mean beyond that.

So on the one hand it'd of course be nice if we implemented the new units being released now - those Slaanesh Chariots for example (which I bought for painting but might actually never play with since I won't be using the rules-patch), or even the SoulGrinder or whatever.

On the other hand, in my opinion we've done such a gargantuan job here. And we never expected GW to just go copy&paste from the material we submitted to them.

Off the top of my head, in the case of Flamers, I guess it's basically a matter of simply dropping that Warpflame business. If they had let Flamers keep the simple 'Flames of Tzeentch' this rules-patch would actually have been ace, wouldn't it?

And Screamers, well basically I Think our versions of these are spot on. Unchanged Slashing Attacks and a bit more moderate buffs to their stats.

Or what were you thinking?

Don't give them too much credit.

They basically handed Flamers 3 nerfs, when any one would have been fine, two excessive, all three absurd.

5 points is actually quite a hefty hit, although I know your 10K games don't feel them as much. Trust me from a 2.5K player, it hurts. This is the change I'd recommend, though, out of the three.

The S-drop could work, but really hurts their role as troubleshooters (this description is not accidental - it's what makes these expensive toys worth fielding. The fact that they have the tools to deal with odd situations away from the thick of battle). Being WS2 is already a handicap in melee, they need some solid melee capability to retain troubleshooter status.

The -1 to hit is a dealbreaker imo. They could have dropped them 5 points and handed them this and they'd still be unplayable. Their entire role is to run around flanks, being mobile harassment troops that can pitch in in a fight. When they are hitting on sixes they are no longer harassing anything, and their entire purpose on the field is brought into question.

Net result? Pick one nerf, and you know which one I favour.

-und_ed

There's a flip-side to that coin: In these large-ish games I'm fond of playing pre-nerf Flamers simply never were very good. Even 'chaff'-units are suddenly big enough to saturate the shooting, and every-one-and-their-mother (as far as units go) have enough static CR to poff Flamers unless you roll a double 1 for BreakTest (which, yeah I know, you do every time when playing Daemons according to Warseer).

So Flamers were definately not an auto-include for me prior to this WD-patch. They really, really, weren't. I play against a limited number of armies, out of which Dark Elves is the only opponant where Flamers have a definate roll to play (Hydras with their Regen, and to some extent Black Guard units with their capped unit-size). That's specific enough targets that even the post-nerf Flamers may just be Worth bringing (keep Rolling those 6's!! and all that) but against any other opponant in my gaming-group Flamers are definately and without any question what-so-ever reduced to the same Laughing-Stock Category where we find the Daemon Prince and Heralds of Tzeentch with Staffs of Change.

I agree, in other Words, they could have made them cheaper and let them keep the S5 in melee, and the penalty for Multiple Shots would still have made them rather damn 'meh'.
And the triple hit they took with this patch is so out there that I can't help suspect it's actually based on projected sales figures:
1 - Fantasy Players already have enough Flamers to satisfy their Rare Section.
2 - Even as a Special Choice, thus, sales would be limited.
3 - Decent Flamers would hurt the sales of Screamers and SoulGrinders to some extent, while ridiculously bad Flamers paves the way for these units.
4 - In 40k, conversely, Flamers were made better.

I know JonathanC has expressed doubts to this sequence of [what I'd call] logic. I was more or less dissed by people on Warseer [as they were jumping up in down doing Waves at this rules-patch] when submitting this theory.. In fact, it was rather peculiar how they kept willfully misunderstanding Everything I said and taking potshots at out-of-context things I said [oh well.. it's Warseer for you..]

Anyway, unless you're on a personal crusade blinding you from the actual realities - I just find it unbelievable that anyone would Think up these Changes and say Yeah, this is probably balanced, they're still useable!!

Because they are not. It's that simple. Now, as a Special Choice (and just as an example) I'd for example have no problem with reducing their Range to 12" (JonathanC's idea which we discussed a lot earlier in this thread) - and while the melee strength is not a great deal in my book as soon as you give them penalties for Multiple Shots you need to accept that they need to go down quite a bit in cost (certainly not up, anyway).

*************************************************************************
EDIT
Another thing that bothers me just a little with this White Dwarf patch is what this 'Warpflame'-stuff means for the general concept of Daemonic Gifts.
You see where I'm going with this I'm sure, as I am sure I'm not the first person to think about it:
One 'reason' to remove "Flames of Tzeentch" from Flamers could be that the Gift itself is on the way out, and that could mean..
***************************************************************************
EDIT (4/8-12)

First of all I'm gonna copy&paste my thoughts about the Gifts, where I was hoping to get some feedback from you guys, which I began discussing prior to talking to Und_Ed *above* about Flamers:

The second issue I'm gonna bring up is the simple fact that I'll be off to France for about 2 weeks, flying out on Monday. This is not really a vacation as I am helping my parents with their business in Nice, and I'll probably drop by here a Little bit but hardly as much as I usually do.

The Third thing I'd like to bring up is just a general reminder of the discussion we started, and to some extent resolved I guess, with regards to the Rules-Patch in the White Dwarf and whether or not to implement this 'as far as possible' in our re-write.

I still have mixed feelings about this - on the one hand it seems kind of stubborn (in a silly way) to refuse the inclusion of the SoulGrinder (it's obviously here to stay, so to speak.. whether we like it or not) and the 'new' Slaanesh Chariots could also be included (including the Hellflayer and Exalted Chariot).

That's as far as I'd be prepared to go. Because Flamers should not be a Special Choice. And at this Point we can at least hope that when GW puts out a new official book they will do some 'erase&rewind' and move Crushers and Fiends to the Special Slot as we've done.

With respect to Screamers I still feel the only change Worth concidering is removing the max-cap on unit size.

All of this would depend entirely on the sentiments of my esteemed collegues of course. As it would clearly require quite a lot of work especially for TheRealVeon and I'm not going to assume that he's up for it, frankly.

But we're clearly at a crossroad with this Project: If we choose to simply ignire the White Dwarf patch (and yes this is tempting because I really Think it sucks, to be perfectly honest) we will ultimately and without doubt Place this re-write in the category of 'alternative fan-made Army Book' - which really wasn't the purpose of this Project.

The other option is a matter of resolve and motivation mostly. Some difficult decisions to be made - for example (as JonathanC pointed out somewhere) the Exalted Seeker Chariot should probably 'replace' our beloved Phantasm, which is a damn shame.. And I guess the SoulGrinder would replace the Behemoth - although we could keep it as a way to present GW with interesting options.

Just thinking out-loud here really. Hoping that over the coming two weeks you guys will have had time to digest stuff sufficiently to have a clear opinion.

Looking at the White Dwarf patch I deduce some details that are clearly bothersome:
- The SoulGrinder doesn't have options for Daemonic Marks. That's something I guess we would have suggested. Perhaps not mandatory but (like the DP) optional.
- The removal of Flames of Tzeentch from Flamers is Another sad instance (not only because the Warpflame mechanics pretty much stinks).

Bottom line is that if we decide to keep working on the path we have set out for this re-write I certainly Think JonathanC's idea of making a 'side-project' with Suggestions&Feedback specifically concerning the White Dwarf patch is Worth persuing!

Cheers!

Well what I was actually suggesting is making changes to the rewrite in line with some of the changes in the update, but only using the ones we agree with and maybe making other changes not currently in either version. However, doing it as a side project (or putting it in the designers notes like the Legion Lords) is another way of handling this. It all depends on how we feel the potential changes effect the overall balance of what we have done so far.

When it comes to Soul Grinder's and marks, well that is fitting since they don't in 40k either and it also suits their background. Part of the Daemon's bargain to become a Soul Grinder (SG's aren't like Furies, they are other Daemons who have made a pact to gain a more powerful form) is that they give up any prior affiliation and all souls they claim now go to the Forge of Souls (where Soul Grinders are made) instead as payment for the 'priviledge' of becoming a Soul Grinder.

Gifts
Just to comment on those gift issues you bought up:

Radiance of Dark glory - This probably won't be a preffered choice for most people, but it has potential use for a lone character like a chariot Herald or DP.

Chaos Forging - to me, this looks excellent if you are planning to create a character assasin.

Aura of Khorne - there are a lot more template spells that just do straight damage now like Wind of Death, Skullstorm, Foot of Gork, etc, and its this sort of thing the Aura protects against. If this trend continues with more AB lores then the gift will just get more useful. Also, even though Bloodletters have good stats they can be nerfed by hexes. I wouldn't want my Bloodletters hit by a Melkoths & Pit combo for example.

Bloodlust/Fury of Khorne - If you could just take 1 which would it be? They both have different subtle uses after all, even if they are pretty similar. I have been wondeirng if Fury could be reduced to 10pts as it may be a bit high at 15pts.

Nurgle's Rot - if wounds started counting towards combat res we would have to put the cost of the gift up for Plaguebearers and the like too, which I wouldn't really want to. We could still change it to being resolved in the close combat phase without counting towards combat res if it makes it easier, although that seems a bit counter-intuitive.

Luring fumes - I actually think that change would make it even more of a headache, simply because of the Initiative penalty. May not be a problem if fighting a lone Keeper/DP but it becomes more problematic when fighting a HoS in a unit.

Siren Song - not sure, will think about it.

Flamers
Well und_ed has made some good points about Flamers and their uses, and I agree about the points hike as it messes up the 1500pt and 2000pt tourney lists I have been using for the last year, because its difficult to make room for an extra 30pts in those circumstances.

As regards to the Warpfire rule, I don't feel strongly about it either way. It isn't really necessary in my view, but does add a bit more colour and if neither a buff or a nerf. It will be interesting to see if it actually makes a difference in game. Incidentally, I reckon this aspect of the Flamers background is represented just as well, if not as dramatically, by the standard to-wound roll.

There really is a lot you could do with Flamers as they have changed quite a bit over the years. Currently people hate them for being a shooting unit that can actually fight in combat (lets convieniently forget for a moment that Dwarfs have been able to do that for ages), whereas in the past they were a combat unit that had a shooting attack, like VC Wraiths with a Banshee.

I was going to write some more about this but I have to go out soon to my club. Playing a 2k game against Ogres where I plan to try out Flamers and some of the other changes. I'll be back with more later.

I just read your post JonathanC and happy hunting in that game you were off to! Right now I am sitting at a French keyboard trying to keep my calm as they (being french I guess) have to be all special and throw around the letters so that I feel like an illiterate trying to type anything. So my post will be breif.

When it comes to implementing the WD changes 'as far as we can abide' I would be onboard for that as long as you and TheRealVeon are up for the task. In that case my mind is pretty much made up on what to implement:
Flamers - Move them to Special, add 5pts to cost, reduce Strength to 4.
Screamers - I think 'our version' is looking better, all I would do is make the unit size 2+.
SoulGrinder/Slaanesh Chariots - To make a long story extremely short, insert them in our re-write exactly like GW did.

It seems absolutely obvious that the Standard Seeker Chariot, if we do this, would replace our current version in the Special Section. And it's an open question if we are to remove the Phantasm all together - although I would actually prefer simply moving Beasts of Nurgle to the Special Section (they belong there more than Flamers anyway imo) and going easy on general 'removals' as the purpose would be to give GW a variety of suggestions rather than something to copy&paste (which they won't do anyway).

I really can't stress how much I dislike the Warpflame-rule though, it's exactly the sort of thing that we (if anyone else had suggested it) would have shot down with extreme prejudice. The fact that it's the fault of that rule that Flamers now sugger penalties for Multiple Shots just adds insult to injury.

Suggesting to GW that they 'erase and rewind' on the issue of Warpflame is the bare minimum we should do. We could also suggest the reduction of shooting range that you have been advocating, but in that case Flamers shouldn't be more expensive than they are now and I would even question the reduction of Strength in that case - as it's only suiting to have a Tweentch unit with S5 if they are strictly 'close quarters'.

Radiance of Dark glory - This probably won't be a preffered choice for most people, but it has potential use for a lone character like a chariot Herald or DP.

THE GIFTS;

Chaos Forging - I agree that it has a specific use. I wasn't saying we should remove it, rather that it would be a candidate if we were to remove Any Gifts from the Shared Section.

Aura of Khorne - You make good points here. I guess it just looks a little off to me that all the other Auras are 20-25pts. But we've been over this and I certainly don't have any better mechanics in mind.

Bloodlust/Fury of Khorne - "If you could just take 1 which would it be?" I don't know man.. So far I've never really felt inclined to take either. Which is why bundling them together into one Gift costing 25-30pts seemed like an interesting idea.

Nurgle's Rot - Yes it would mean the upgrade would become marginally more expensive of course. Why do you concider this a problem?

Luring fumes - You're right. Didn't really concider that aspect of it naturally. I really like the Gift to be honest, but I have to say it got really messy in the last game I played.. Although that might have something to do with it being a 10k game after all..

Siren Song - Not sure either. I have tried bringing it a couple of times now and haven't been able to get it off once, that's all. We all know I'm a fluffbunny and hardly the best of cut-throat players. But yeah, dropping it to 20pts shouldn't raise too many eyebrows I think (with our current mechanic).

I'll check in later. Hoping that TheRealVeon has been by at the point. Hope you have a good evening of gaming JonathanC, just don't return pouring praise over GW's Flamers haha

This keyboard is killing me.

EDIT
Regarding Flamers as a Special Choice I've been thinking some more on this, and it comes down to a couple of different 'versions' that are more or less radical compared to the GW update:

Option 1 - No changes except delete the Warpflame rule. This cuts directly the 'core problem' of GW's update. No more, no less.

Option 2 - Ignore all of GW's changes, instead reduce firing Range to 12" and decrease cost to 30pts.

Option 3 - Ignore Warpflame and strength-reduction, reduce range to 12" with "Quick To Fire". Cost would thus be 40pts.

Option 4 - Ignore Warpflame, reduce range to 12" with Quick To Fire, implement Strength-reduction and stay at 35pts per model.

Something like that, or a mix of two of the options of course - this is just meant as a basis for further conversation. As is evident the only thing I feel strongly about is the Warpflame rule.

EDIT 2
As a Special Choice I kinda like the idea of reducing the Firing Range of Flamers. I know we discussed this at length before, and I was more reluctant to the change with them still in the Rare Slot. From what I remember, letting them get the Quick To Fire rule seems pretty much a given if we do this. Also, this of course means that the Warpflame Special Rule would still be needed (as their shooting attack would not mimic Flames of Tzeentch) so we'd be looking at:
Warpflame - Shooting attack range 12", D6 shots, No Penalty for Multiple Shots, Quick To Fire.

EDIT 3
Given the above, I have serious doubts about the necessity/validity of reducing their Strength to 4. I basically think it's either that or their cost remaining the same (35pts) - where-as doing both (in light of reduced range) seems a bit over the top.
Basically reducing their Range would be the proverbial 'nerf'. More than enough if you ask me.
Upping their cost by 5pts is the 'penalty' for no longer being a Rare Choice, this is fair as far as I am concerned.
But reducing their Strength to 4 on top of this is just ?? Well what exactly? It doesn't seem to have much to do with creating balanced rules anyway..
So I'd say it comes down to either the strength-decrease or the cost-increase, not both.

This would turn Flamers into a rather interesting new unit, especially for Tweentch Themed lists. They'd be extremely close-quarters, and able to dish out some damage in combat (which suddenly seems rather appropriate, doesn't it?).

And naturally we should keep our upgrades in my humble opinion.

OK, let's talk about Warpflame quickly.

It seems like such a silly thing to harp on about in comparison to the other heavy-handed stuff that was done to flamers, but I suppose it still needs to be discussed.

First we need to look at what role (or purpose) we envisage for flamers to have. I still like the troubleshooter role, something daemons sorely need in our shooting-starved army book. They could be viewed as a pure shooting unit (in which case the range really needs to be upped to 24"). A big draw card is the ranged flaming aspect, a great way to bring regenerating monsters / units down to size by knocking a coupld of wounds off of them.

With this in mind, doesn't it seem ridiculous that a unit designed to make regenerating monsters less problematic has a chance (even if only a 16% chance) of making a regenerating unit even more problematic? It's actually a game-design failure that is staggering to behold when viewed in isolation, but gets overlooked when viewed in conjunction with the far more egregious crimes that the update has committed against them.

Short answer: Toss Warpflame to the winds.

Regarding utilising the WD update, I have two comments:

1) As above, if you're going to include some of it, just use one, it does plenty. You really need to look at the return on points you're seeing for Flamers closely before nerfing them in every direction.

2) Don't do it! Really people, I know this is a committee, and as such this concept is a bit alien, but show some artistic integrity. You pulled together to create a vision for what you thought it should look like - so stick to it! Don't run around like headless chickens just because a WD was published with some tacked-on rules. It smacks of desperation and people-pleasing, and is neither attractive nor convincing. Collect some guts from within the committee and show some collective backbone.

And that's Ed's demonstration of how little he learned from Dale Carnegie for this week.

-und_ed

It should be added at this point that I asked Und_Ed personally to make a sort of guest-star appearance here and give us his two cents on the discussion of Flamers. I was actually expecting him to go ballistic on us for other reasons - haha - but there are none-the-less (in my opinion) important facettes of this issue that Und_Ed's post brings to light. He captures my sentiment very much on point: Warpflame appears to be a joke.

I would have hoped to get Und_Ed's specific assessment on the notion of moving Flamers to Special, reducing their range to 12" ('our' Warpflame), letting them keep Strength 5 in combat, and giving them the quick-to-fire rule... Assuming that the cost would still be 35pts/model, would this not allow them to retain the role of trouble-shooters?

What I am getting at is simply:
Does the nerf of reduced range (12" instead of 18") balance out compared to the buff of no longer being a Rare Slot Choice + getting the Quick To Fire Special Rule??

Where I agree with Und_Ed in proportions that defy description, however, is the basic feeling that Warpflame (as it currently stands officially) is a tacky idea to a point where I won't give it the credit of a single game of playtesting. Forget about the fact that you run the risk of granting Regen when your purpose is to negate it, I think the whole idea of an 'extra mechanic' super-imposed on the multitude of dice-rolls already present (in the game) is just *why, for the love of god why*.

What I suggest is that Flamers, as a Special Choice, would be good at shooting BUT have a very limited Range (12" Quick To Fire) and retain some potential in combat (low WS and high Strength).

Und_Ed's second postulation; That we just say 'screw this' and continue down our set path, is - as I have also said before - tempting. We are still waiting for RealVeon's verdict on that one, by the way. I'll just repeat the fact that this project was never supposed to be an 'Alternative FanMade Army Book' per say, rather it was a project aimed at making serious suggestions (to GW themselves) for how they could revamp the DoC officially. . . And given that, as much as we might lament it, SoulGrinders are obviously in Fantasy now, Flamers are very likely to be Special in our next book, etcetera.

Just to underscore why it's perhaps not as simple as just to go on the high-road of integrity. Although I understand what you mean, Und_Ed.

Well I leave the word to you gents. Thanks for gracing us with your tempered precense Ed.