Logo
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Fri Apr 10, 2020 9:37 am



Reply to topic  [ 91 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Cult of Slaanesh rewrite discussion 
Author Message
Executioner

Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 9:34 pm
Posts: 192
Location: Denmark
Post 
MartialArtist wrote:
On channeling dice: instead of making it flat immune to instability how about:

“In the magic phase, a Sorceress or Supreme Sorceress can channel up to the number of Power Dice she generates into a Daemon unit within 12” of herself. This extra power allows the unit to ignore a number of wounds inflicted from a failed Instability test equal to the number of Power dice expended from the strengthened Daemon unit until the Sorceresses next Magic Phase. Stabilising a Daemonic unit like this is relatively easy for a Sorceress, and the process can not be prevented by enemy dispel attempts or dispel scrolls and similar items that prevent spells. A Sorceress and Supreme Sorceress can only “boost” a single Daemonic unit in this way each turn and a Daemonic unit may only be boosted by one Sorceress's dice per turn.”

That is on a similar line, and can aid a demon unit that you really need to hold on, but isn't extreme. Just a thought: Maybe change it so that this rule can't affect the Keeper Of Secrets as I just realised that a Supreme Sorc aiding a Keeper could be quite potent....


That could work. I’d say that we’ll ultimately need some playtesting of the idea, to see if it works as intended on the battlefield or not, but I’m perfectly willing to give this a try. I would have to point out though, that leaving the rule like this would mean that the Sorceress could/would arguably have to more or less forgo her magic phase, in order to help out a Daemon unit in a worthwhile manner. That cost might be a little steep. IMO Sorceresses and mages in general are already plenty expensive as they are, and my normal experience with them is that they can often struggle to earn their worth on the battlefield. So potentially giving up a round of magic for one or more Sorceresses could arguably be a pretty steep price to pay.
I just thought of another option though:

“Channel 1 PD into a Daemon unit, and grant them the ASF rule until the caster’s next magic phase.”

or

“Channel 1 PD into a Daemon unit, and grant them +1 on their Ward Save until the caster’s next magic phase.”

Basically this would give them an edge in combat, either by letting them strike before their opponents, or alternatively by making them more durable. The ASF version would stay true to the Slaanesh theme, it shouldn’t be overpowered, and it basically then duplicates the effects of having a Slaanesh Herald in the unit. (I’d argue that it could also justify removing the Herald from the list with little problem. But I’m biased in that regard, as I believe that this should be done anyway…). The bonus on the Ward Save (5+ => 4+) would help them survive and cut down on casualties. We could even go so far as to allow both effects to be applied to the same unit, at the cost of 1 PD per effect. Thus if you’d want a unit to have both ASF and a 4+ Ward save for a turn, a Sorceress would have to spend 2 of her PD for the turn.


MartialArtist wrote:
Also, is the idea here that these rules will replace the binding ones I had? I think that this rule could work with the one I had (instability test at start of turn if outside summoning ranges), and allow a Sorc to give up her magic to aid a demon unit outside of the instability range (hey, this fits, providing perfect solution for Furies, Fiends and Seekers), though for this to work a Sorc would have to be able to power any unit on the board (as otherwise the demons will always be inside summoning range anyway). I think this really could work! Everything else I've thought that way about hasn't really happened, but I'm confident on this one.


Combined with limiting the no. of Daemon units in the army to 1 per Sorceress, and 2 pr. Supreme Sorceress, I’d cut out you version of the Binding rule. I’d do it for 3 reasons (listed below in no particular order):

1) I generally don’t like having to measure the distance between specific units and characters once or twice per round, in order to make sure that I don’t risk “shooting myself in the foot” without reason (check once at the beginning of the turn, to see if a unit needs to check for instability, and once after I’m finished moving the units).
2) I believe that the “need” to keep Daemonic units within a specific distance from particular characters is restrictive to a degree that I don’t feel is necessary.
3) IMO your version of the Binding rule is a type of “negative reinforcement” meant to reinforce how we believe a Cult army should be played. I generally don’t like negative reinforcement (if you don’t keep your Daemonic unit close to the army’s Sorceresses or some other nexus, then you might kill them off, without the aid of the opponent), and I’d much rather have a positive reinforcement to do something (if you keep your Daemonic units close to your Sorceresses, they can get some special support during the game…).


MartialArtist wrote:
Completely agree, I think one mandatory 10+ devoted unit per REQUIRED 3 core choices (as said before, but I've gotta recap some of this stuff) making it 1 unit at 2000, 2 at 5000, 3 at 8000 etc. Simple, effective, (for me) done.


Hm. Interesting idea. Can we play around with the wording for this one please. I’m all for the idea, but we need a clear and well flowing formulation that is easy for people to remember and work with.


MartialArtist wrote:
Kyrel said:
Daemons
I’m all for Daemons of Slaanesh having a place in the Cult of Pleasure army. However, I also believe that they should be limited in qty. in the army, and that they should have less options than they have in the Daemon army book. And with less options I mean no upgrades (equipment, command group, or otherwise), and no Daemonic characters besides the Keeper. Daemons are tools and a means to an end for the Druchii. Nothing more IMO.

I think that the Daemon problem is solved by my above summoning rules, and that Herald should be in. If the summoning isn't enough, include this too

“You can include 1 Daemonic unit per Sorceress in the army, and 2 per Supreme Sorceress.”

but I think that's overkill with the way things are, as a Sorc has to be general, (with my rules) you need enough to cover your Daemons (or keep them close to the general) and if your going to be having too many Daemons outside your ranges than you'll need a few power dice...

As above, I think Daemons should still get command group (the banner for combat res, musician for tied combats and champion for wounds) should be an option as they need the combat bonus' to stop themselves falling apart, but think no magic banners for Daemons (or Chaos Warriors and Knights....). The Cult Sorcs (who I imagine are keepers of magic artefacts) aren't going to give out their precious items to someone who might vanish out of reality with it at any moment, or who might just decide to walk off back to the north... (covered before but recap nessecary)


Well, I’ve already touched upon this above, but concentrating on the options thing this time, here’s why I’m saying “No Upgrades at all” (again in no particular order below).

1) It differentiates the unit from the regular Daemon units.
2) I want Daemons to be perceived as tools of the Druchii, nothing more. While I agree that a lone Daemonic unit arguably need the Command Group option in order not to struggle too much against any and all opponents, I see this as a good thing. Why? Because that means that a Daemon unit becomes an obvious SUPPORT unit to the Druchii units, who provide the Standard and Musician.
3) Since a Daemon unit without Command Group could end up struggling against an enemy unit, it’s yet another reason for keeping them close to a Sorceress, so that she can boost their abilities and help them survive.

MartialArtist wrote:
Kyrel wrote:
IMO we should use the new rules for the Shades, and let them remain as a Core selection. However, as it would undoubtedly be too cheesy to allow an entire army with nothing but Shades, 1 Sorceress, and 1 unit of minimum size Devoted, we’d need a rule to prevent this. My suggestion would be:

No more than one unit of Shades per 1000 pts. in the army count as Core. Further Shade units that that count as Special. Thus a 2000 pts. army with 3 units of Shades would have them count as 2 Core units, and 1 Special unit.


MartialArtist wrote:
Here is one of the places where I for once see that things are getting unnecessarily complicated. All that sounds way too hard. Just leave shades as special. Interestingly I had a similar idea


Fair enough. Personally I like the thought of having a force with a higher than usual number of Shades, and from a fluff POW I can envision why or at least how Shades would have an easier time following the Cult of Pleasure, compared to Druchii living in a city where the worship of Khaine is prevalent. I can easily follow the idea that it is much simpler to just let Shades count as Special, but at the same time Weenth has a good point, which I believe is worth keeping in mind.

Weenth wrote:
The way I see it, Shades were core in 6th CoS, because someone thought 'hey, we're moving fast cavalry to special; unless we put skirmishers or flyers as core, they'll end up with just regular M5/4 infantry'
In current version of the list (even with Furies as special) we have (albeit more CC than shooty) fast cavalry unit (Marauder Horsmen) and M6 infantry to boot (Daemonettes), so we have some diversity in that aspect.


If we elect to remove Shades from the Core selection, what are we left with? As far as I’ve understood it, we’ll have:

Druchii Warriors
Druchii Crossbowmen
Devoted
Daemonettes?
Furries?
Marauder Horsemen
Marauders?

As I see it, this would mean that all the Druchii units in the Core selection are standard M5/4 infantry choices. Furries and Daemonettes shouldn’t be in Core in the first place IMO, since I feel that this puts too great a focus on them, compared with the fact that we are making a Druchii army. Same thing with the Human Marauder(s) (Horsemen). They are not Druchii. If we want to keep Shades out of the Core section, then I believe that we should at least move the Dark Riders into the Core from the Special section. I would really prefer to keep the Shades in Core in stead, but without some sort of restriction on them, it could quickly lead to some really annoying armies (I tried a Shades, Dark Riders, Characters on monsters army in 4th/5th ed., and it was just so idiotic that it just wasn’t funny to play neither with nor against). Similarly I would feel it really weird to see a Cult army with 1 unit of Devoted and then several units of Marauder Horsemen and Daemonettes. I’d be going “I thought I was going to be facing a Cult army here. Not a Chaos army!”. The Core selection of the army is what constitutes the, well…core of the army. It’s what embodies the essence of what the army is supposed to be, and for this reason I really believe that the troops in the Core section should all be Druchii. All the “support” units like Marauders, Daemons, Chaos Warriors etc. should all be consigned to either the Special or Rare section.

/Kyrel
[/b]


Thu Nov 06, 2008 4:01 pm
Profile
Corsair
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 8:20 am
Posts: 90
Post 
Kyrel wrote:
1) I generally don’t like having to measure the distance between specific units and characters once or twice per round, in order to make sure that I don’t risk “shooting myself in the foot” without reason (check once at the beginning of the turn, to see if a unit needs to check for instability, and once after I’m finished moving the units).
2) I believe that the “need” to keep Daemonic units within a specific distance from particular characters is restrictive to a degree that I don’t feel is necessary.
3) IMO your version of the Binding rule is a type of “negative reinforcement” meant to reinforce how we believe a Cult army should be played. I generally don’t like negative reinforcement (if you don’t keep your Daemonic unit close to the army’s Sorceresses or some other nexus, then you might kill them off, without the aid of the opponent), and I’d much rather have a positive reinforcement to do something (if you keep your Daemonic units close to your Sorceresses, they can get some special support during the game…).


1) You would have to check twice because of instability at start of turn and also during magic phase right? Your correct here that it is a bit of a pain, and can be modified, but if it happens at the same time as the usual check than it sort of stuffs the idea of letting the Sorcs give up PD to help on Instability, unless they gave dice up the turn before the test (or we do some weird Movement/Magic crossover period), but that's starting to get a little complex...

2) That was the point of these modified binding rules, that you could venture them outside the ranges and could boost them with PD to allow this. This does mean you are giving up a lot of magic though if you really want to power plenty of fast moving demons.
I don't really like this concern though coming from you, as we agree the Demons are only tools. Any unit of Daemonettes in your army should easily be covered as it is with the battleline where your Sorcs should be, and if you really want to have more than one unit (in 2k points) of Furies/Seekers/Fiends (who would be the ones outside the ranges) than there is probably too much focus on the Demons in the army anyway....

3) It isn't to enforce the way the cult should be played, but to differentiate the deamons as you want to do with the upgrades from the usual ones and to provide a link to the fluff as one of the early fundamentals of this project was rules = fluff, as many people get frustrated at the GW rules =/ fluff thing that happens so often and we were trying to avoid that.

I agree it is a "negative" rule, but I see it as less of a "reinforcement" and more as a bit of a challenge to the Cult player, something a little unique.

The way you see it, you would advocate that EVERY special rule should be an advantage? So the Orcs shouldn't have animosity? This is a good example so I won't go into all the details of negative special rules and stuff but you should still be able to see my point.

Kyrel wrote:
That could work. I’d say that we’ll ultimately need some playtesting of the idea, to see if it works as intended on the battlefield or not, but I’m perfectly willing to give this a try. I would have to point out though, that leaving the rule like this would mean that the Sorceress could/would arguably have to more or less forgo her magic phase, in order to help out a Daemon unit in a worthwhile manner. That cost might be a little steep. IMO Sorceresses and mages in general are already plenty expensive as they are, and my normal experience with them is that they can often struggle to earn their worth on the battlefield. So potentially giving up a round of magic for one or more Sorceresses could arguably be a pretty steep price to pay.


Yeeeeah, agreed. Maybe change it so the Demons get a +2 LD bonus for Instability per PD channeled? Or maybe +1 LD for 1 Dice and +3 for 2 (Max 10 obviously)? I don't want to make it too easy for the Cult player to just edge around the Binding rules, but I can see that Sorcs are expensive and if they aren't going to give a fair boost than its probably better just not use the help option at all. As above though, allowing the Demons too much freedom could make them a too major part of the army.

Kyrel wrote:
2) I want Daemons to be perceived as tools of the Druchii, nothing more. While I agree that a lone Daemonic unit arguably need the Command Group option in order not to struggle too much against any and all opponents, I see this as a good thing. Why? Because that means that a Daemon unit becomes an obvious SUPPORT unit to the Druchii units, who provide the Standard and Musician.


Weenth, what do you think? In any case you (Kyrel) still wouldn't have a problem with Daemons having a Champion (but not Standard and Musician)?

Kyrel wrote:
As I see it, this would mean that all the Druchii units in the Core selection are standard M5/4 infantry choices. Furries and Daemonettes shouldn’t be in Core in the first place IMO, since I feel that this puts too great a focus on them, compared with the fact that we are making a Druchii army.


I'm getting really conflicting messages here. You want LESS of a focus on Daemons, but want Sorcs to give them all of these extra bonus' that are only incentives for taking them?

Kyrel wrote:
Same thing with the Human Marauder(s) (Horsemen). They are not Druchii.


but they are most DEFINITELY core, as official fluff is the Marauders were the numbers behind Morathi's unveiled Cult during the Storm Of Chaos (remember fluff = rules). I had a problem a little while ago where I thought the project was getting way too much away from the Druchii, and here you are doing the complete opposite and trying to bring it too much BACK to the Druchii.

Kyrel wrote:
Similarly I would feel it really weird to see a Cult army with 1 unit of Devoted and then several units of Marauder Horsemen and Daemonettes. I’d be going “I thought I was going to be facing a Cult army here. Not a Chaos army!”. The Core selection of the army is what constitutes the, well…core of the army. It’s what embodies the essence of what the army is supposed to be, and for this reason I really believe that the troops in the Core section should all be Druchii. All the “support” units like Marauders, Daemons, Chaos Warriors etc. should all be consigned to either the Special or Rare section.


The Cult core should be composed of DE, Devoted, Marauders (and their horses) and limited numbers of Daemonettes, with the more specialized and REAL support units such as the Chaos Warriors, Seekers, Fiends, Shades etc. as Special/Rare.

The thing about army comp that you highlighted above is why I believe Devoted should be mandatory, and would impose the Binding rules onto Daemons to stop them becoming too much of a focus. Marauders as discussed above are fluffwise the numbers, and an army that had 3 core units of Marauders, a Warlord, 2 x Horseman, and then some Devoted, a few DE, Sorcs, maybe one Demonic or Mortal unit etc. is how the cult would really have been composed. Marauders should have the option to compose the balance of the army, as that is highly likely the way the cult would have fought, or also have the option to have little or no Marauders, as this particular force was more elitist and selected.

I'd like to hear what Weenth has to say on all this but I think he'd probably back up a lot of the stuff I've said.

Anyway, I've sort of lost thread of all of what I was just saying and where to go next so yeah....

MA

_________________
Strike hard and fast, but strike silently.

Revive the Cult! http://www.druchii.net/viewtopic.php?t= ... sc&start=0


Mon Nov 10, 2008 6:38 am
Profile
Executioner

Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 9:34 pm
Posts: 192
Location: Denmark
Post 
MartialArtist wrote:
Kyrel wrote:
1) I generally don’t like having to measure the distance between specific units and characters once or twice per round, in order to make sure that I don’t risk “shooting myself in the foot” without reason (check once at the beginning of the turn, to see if a unit needs to check for instability, and once after I’m finished moving the units).


1) You would have to check twice because of instability at start of turn and also during magic phase right? Your correct here that it is a bit of a pain, and can be modified, but if it happens at the same time as the usual check than it sort of stuffs the idea of letting the Sorcs give up PD to help on Instability, unless they gave dice up the turn before the test (or we do some weird Movement/Magic crossover period), but that's starting to get a little complex...


Actually my thought was that I’d have to check at the start of the turn to see if I’d have to check for instability due to the unit being outside the binding distance of a Sorceress, and then I’d have to check again after having moved my units in order to try and ensure that I haven’t unwittingly moved the daemons out of the binding distance.


MartialArtist wrote:
Kyrel wrote:
2) I believe that the “need” to keep Daemonic units within a specific distance from particular characters is restrictive to a degree that I don’t feel is necessary.

3) IMO your version of the Binding rule is a type of “negative reinforcement” meant to reinforce how we believe a Cult army should be played. I generally don’t like negative reinforcement (if you don’t keep your Daemonic unit close to the army’s Sorceresses or some other nexus, then you might kill them off, without the aid of the opponent), and I’d much rather have a positive reinforcement to do something (if you keep your Daemonic units close to your Sorceresses, they can get some special support during the game…).


2) That was the point of these modified binding rules, that you could venture them outside the ranges and could boost them with PD to allow this. This does mean you are giving up a lot of magic though if you really want to power plenty of fast moving demons.
I don't really like this concern though coming from you, as we agree the Demons are only tools. Any unit of Daemonettes in your army should easily be covered as it is with the battleline where your Sorcs should be, and if you really want to have more than one unit (in 2k points) of Furies/Seekers/Fiends (who would be the ones outside the ranges) then there is probably too much focus on the Demons in the army anyway....

3) It isn't to enforce the way the cult should be played, but to differentiate the deamons as you want to do with the upgrades from the usual ones and to provide a link to the fluff as one of the early fundamentals of this project was rules = fluff, as many people get frustrated at the GW rules =/ fluff thing that happens so often and we were trying to avoid that.
I agree it is a "negative" rule, but I see it as less of a "reinforcement" and more as a bit of a challenge to the Cult player, something a little unique.





You know, I think that we at this point have come to time where you and I at least are down to personal preferences on this particular issue, and that it should really come down to play testing and/or more people’s views on the matter.
We basically agree that Daemons should have some sort of restriction on them, and we both believe in a “Binding” rule of some sort, so as to make it fit in with the fluff. Our difference apparently comes down to preference. As I understand you, your preference is to let Daemon units be Special/Rare choices, but with no other limitations (though I think I remember you opening up for the possibility of limiting them to 1 unit per Sorceress or 2 pr. Supreme Sorceress), and then have the Binding rule exist as a tactical challenge that requires the Daemons to remain within a given distance of a “Nexus”, or risk dying from Instability.
While we can actually agree that your binding rule is pretty good, seen from a fluff perspective, I just dislike having my tactical options limited by such a rule. I agree that it isn’t likely to be a common problem, but I would still find it annoying as a player to have to keep blowing PD on fast moving Daemon units I’d want to operate at the flanks, or behind enemy lines, in order to prevent the risk of them going “Poof” on me.
My alternative to the Binding rule, the purpose of which would be to limit the no. of Daemonic units in the army, would be to limit the army to one Daemonic unit per Sorceress. My suggestions on the possible “Boost” of the Daemon units were meant partly to give players a positive reason to keep Daemonic units close to a Sorceress, and partly to offset the disadvantage of not being able to have a Command Group or other upgrades (like a magical Banner).
Basically I think that we agree on the overall goal (Daemons are tools to the Druchii, and should be a minority in the army, and since the Daemons are summoned by the Sorceresses in the army, there should be some sort of fluff compatible rule to emphasise that link between the two).
Again, both or our rule suggestions can probably work, but I believe that it will have to come down to a test on the battlefield, in order to determine which might be the best way to go.

MartialArtist wrote:
The way you see it, you would advocate that EVERY special rule should be an advantage? So the Orcs shouldn't have animosity? This is a good example so I won't go into all the details of negative special rules and stuff but you should still be able to see my point.


I do see your point, and I concede that there are plenty of “negative” rules within the game. Some of these rules are fun and workable. Others I just find really annoying. Basically we’re down to opinions.


MartialArtist wrote:
Kyrel wrote:
That could work. I’d say that we’ll ultimately need some playtesting of the idea, to see if it works as intended on the battlefield or not, but I’m perfectly willing to give this a try. I would have to point out though, that leaving the rule like this would mean that the Sorceress could/would arguably have to more or less forgo her magic phase, in order to help out a Daemon unit in a worthwhile manner. That cost might be a little steep. IMO Sorceresses and mages in general are already plenty expensive as they are, and my normal experience with them is that they can often struggle to earn their worth on the battlefield. So potentially giving up a round of magic for one or more Sorceresses could arguably be a pretty steep price to pay.

Yeeeeah, agreed. Maybe change it so the Demons get a +2 LD bonus for Instability per PD channeled? Or maybe +1 LD for 1 Dice and +3 for 2 (Max 10 obviously)? I don't want to make it too easy for the Cult player to just edge around the Binding rules, but I can see that Sorcs are expensive and if they aren't going to give a fair boost then its probably better just not use the help option at all. As above though, allowing the Demons too much freedom could make them a too major part of the army.


Hmm. Interesting creative option :).
Let’s for a second try and get back to basics here. What are we trying to achieve with these rules, and why? We want the rules to emphasise the link between the Sorceresses and the Daemons. We want Instability in combat for the Daemons because that’s what they have in the Daemons of Chaos armybook. And you’d like the additional tactical challenge of having to keep the Daemon units close to a Sorceress, in order to prevent them from not going “poof” due to a lack of sufficient magical energy to sustain them in the material world. Now here’s the question. How do we get these requirements to fit in with the fluff and at the same time keep the Daemon units balanced within the army?
As I see it, the most important reasons for having these rules in the first place, is to highlight the link between the Daemons and Sorceresses, and to limit the number of Daemon unit in the Cult army. For this reason I’m in favour of restricting the Daemonic units beyond the normal Special/Rare limits. In my view, this also underlines the Daemons dependency on Sorceresses.
As for the Instability when outside combat and outside “binding range” issue which we are mainly debating, what is the main purpose of this rule? As I understand you, the main point with the Binding distances, is the additional tactical challenge it provides the player, and then the fact that it fits the fluff. Part of my gripe is that I really don’t like seeing expensive units go “poof” for no good reason. Especially since the Daemons have an Ld of 7. Now, I’ll agree that we can work on the tactical challenge issue, because you are beginning to win me over on that one. But. IMO we need to look at a way to balance the potential consequences of Instability for Daemon units outside the Binding range. Here’s a new suggestion that also does away with the additional special rule for the Sorceresses:

Daemons that are outside the Binding range at the beginning of the Cult player’s Turn, must make an Instability test or suffer 1 Wound with no saves of any kind allowed.

I’ll grant you that this version won’t necessarily be all that much of a deterrent with regards to a unit of 20 Daemonettes, but the Daemonettes are not the real problem, as they will be simple enough to keep within the Binding range. The problem is the small fast units like Furies, Seekers, and Fiends, who are both expensive and few in numbers. A 50% chance of suffering at least 1 wound on a unit consisting of 5 wounds (5 Seekers) is just too much. Furies with Ld2 are even worse, as they’ll suffer an average of 5-6 wounds per turn outside Binding range. A 50% chance of suffering 1 wound will still be something that you need to consider as a player, if your unit only has a total of 5 Wounds, but at least you don’t risk loosing your entire unit due to an accidental misplacement, or the death of a Sorceress. [b]Can you agree on this version MartialArtist?[b]


MartialArtist wrote:
Kyrel wrote:
2) I want Daemons to be perceived as tools of the Druchii, nothing more. While I agree that a lone Daemonic unit arguably need the Command Group option in order not to struggle too much against any and all opponents, I see this as a good thing. Why? Because that means that a Daemon unit becomes an obvious SUPPORT unit to the Druchii units, who provide the Standard and Musician.


Weenth, what do you think? In any case you (Kyrel) still wouldn't have a problem with Daemons having a Champion (but not Standard and Musician)?


In general I’d be against having a Unit Champion for the Daemons as well, but to be honest, limiting the Daemons in this manner is really something that would have to be play tested as well, because it might well require a different approach to playing the Daemon units. At any rate, I’m open to debate this issue, especially if someone can provide accounts of battlefield behaviour ;)


MartialArtist wrote:
Kyrel wrote:
As I see it, this would mean that all the Druchii units in the Core selection are standard M5/4 infantry choices. Furries and Daemonettes shouldn’t be in Core in the first place IMO, since I feel that this puts too great a focus on them, compared with the fact that we are making a Druchii army.


I'm getting really conflicting messages here. You want LESS of a focus on Daemons, but want Sorcs to give them all of these extra bonus' that are only incentives for taking them?


My original suggestion on the Binding rule was really just an attempt to limit the effect of the Instability/Binding effect. I was sort of shooting for a rule that would just help them out a little, not provide players with an additional incentive to take more Daemons. Hopefully my new suggestion above deals with this issue.


MartialArtist wrote:
Kyrel wrote:
Same thing with the Human Marauder(s) (Horsemen). They are not Druchii.


But they are most DEFINITELY core, as official fluff is the Marauders were the numbers behind Morathi's unveiled Cult during the Storm Of Chaos (remember fluff = rules). I had a problem a little while ago where I thought the project was getting way too much away from the Druchii, and here you are doing the complete opposite and trying to bring it too much BACK to the Druchii.

Kyrel wrote:
Similarly I would feel it really weird to see a Cult army with 1 unit of Devoted and then several units of Marauder Horsemen and Daemonettes. I’d be going “I thought I was going to be facing a Cult army here. Not a Chaos army!”. The Core selection of the army is what constitutes the, well…core of the army. It’s what embodies the essence of what the army is supposed to be, and for this reason I really believe that the troops in the Core section should all be Druchii. All the “support” units like Marauders, Daemons, Chaos Warriors etc. should all be consigned to either the Special or Rare section.


The Cult core should be composed of DE, Devoted, Marauders (and their horses) and limited numbers of Daemonettes, with the more specialized and REAL support units such as the Chaos Warriors, Seekers, Fiends, Shades etc. as Special/Rare.


True. In the 6th ed. army list these guys were Core units, and the fluff would support them being that. But this then begets a question. Which time period are we aiming to make the Cult army represent? Before the Storm of Chaos, the Cult of Pleasure was an underground thing without an actual “army” (though I’d argue that it could probably have mustered one purely of Dark Elves, if needed). During the Storm of Chaos a good part of the Cult army consisted of Chaos Marauders and Warriors/Knights, along with Daemons and a few Dark Elf units. But what about after the Storm of Chaos? Arguably a lot of the Marauders/Warriors/Knights would have been killed during the war in Lustria, and what would Morathi do with the tribes once the campaign was finished? I’d argue that it would be rather difficult for her to keep them within Naggaroth, and if she has them return north of the border to the Chaos Wastes, then she won’t have ready access to great numbers of them. So I’d say that we actually need to determine which time period we are making the Cult army for. Personally I’d prefer to make the army as it will look after the Storm of Chaos, and that’s what I’ve been basing my suggestions on so far. But what says the rest of you on this matter?


MartialArtist wrote:
The thing about army comp that you highlighted above is why I believe Devoted should be mandatory, and would impose the Binding rules onto Daemons to stop them becoming too much of a focus. Marauders as discussed above are fluffwise the numbers, and an army that had 3 core units of Marauders, a Warlord, 2 x Horseman, and then some Devoted, a few DE, Sorcs, maybe one Demonic or Mortal unit etc. is how the cult would really have been composed. Marauders should have the option to compose the balance of the army, as that is highly likely the way the cult would have fought, or also have the option to have little or no Marauders, as this particular force was more elitist and selected.


Again, I think that this issue really comes down to which time period we are trying to represent the army in. Pre, during, or post Storm of Chaos. Personally I vote Post Storm of Chaos (even if it would appear that GW in their infinite incomprehensibility has elected to invalidate several years worth of fluff and warp the game back to the time prior to the Storm of Chaos).

MartialArtist wrote:
I'd like to hear what Weenth has to say on all this but I think he'd probably back up a lot of the stuff I've said.

Anyway, I've sort of lost thread of all of what I was just saying and where to go next so yeah....


So would I. And I agree. It is beginning to be somewhat hard to keep track of who said/suggested what, and at which time.


/Kyrel


Mon Nov 10, 2008 8:14 pm
Profile
Noble
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 3:04 am
Posts: 437
Location: Sweden - without any polar bears!
Post 
I really want Chaor Warriors as a special choice in a Slaanesh list.

The previous Slaanesh list from 6th edition worked for me, why not just resurect it?
Was a good balance, was it not?
I feel a little depressed that I can't use my pink chaos warriors for anything anymore

_________________
//Kheel

Nobody really cares if you’re miserable, so you might as well be happy.


Mon Nov 10, 2008 10:57 pm
Profile YIM
Dark Rider
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 8:58 am
Posts: 130
Location: United States
Post 
I would like the 6th ed book given a face lift personally, mabey a new thing or two, but minimal changes. I am stalwartly opposed to eliminating mortals from the list, I feel that they bring a lot of the unique feel to the list, Its one thing if you want streamlined DE with slannesh lore and ItP but I felt the cult list was a fusion of chaos and DE and those poor chaos warriors never got their fair share.

so option A for me

really all we wound need to do is pick some magic items and mabey switch around a unit or too.(mabey tone down the anointed too) should be a small project (minus play testing of course)

only real decisions are

magic items/annionted gifts
which lore of slannesh to use(deamons or mortals)
and whether or not to include new deamon units(fiend of slannesh, herald ect)

my two cents

_________________
Step 1: Find a High Elf
Step 2: Find a preferably sharp object
Step 3: ???
Step 4: 3 Pieces!

my characters
rules
http://www.druchii.net/viewtopic.php?p=609716#609716
fluff
http://www.druchii.net/viewtopic.php?t=50387


Tue Nov 11, 2008 6:57 am
Profile
Slave on the Altar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 7:36 am
Posts: 6
Post 
I really like what you guys are doing here.
I just wanted to post some of my thoughts.
Also I should remind you that I am a warhammer noob, so these are only ideas and may not be useful.

Elves are not immune to mutation it seems, just resistant to it.
One of the other posts about the CoS mentioned Dechala the Denied One was once a high elf, if thats true then she has been heavily mutated. Also Aekold Helbrass really looks like he was once a high elf (though I know hes not slaanesh)
It seems like it would take allot of time and devotion for an elf to become mutated.
Also I wanted to mention that if the Anointed left about the time of the sundering, prior to this all elves were the same race, wouldn't the anointed elves be as different (or more so) from dark elves as the dark elves are from the high elves? since they had just as much time apart.
If we are to believe WAR, high elves look different than dark elves.

Perhaps some thought should be put into how Anointed look and act.

It seems when people make an Anointed, they make the skin pale white (myself included) not sure why, perhaps thats what happens to an anointed's skin.
Its weird because if the anointed were changed over time influenced by the magic of slaanesh then wouldnt their skin get more colourful and vibrant instead of pale, since that is a more slaaneshy thing to do.

Also can Anointeds have mutations? or are they just pale elves in chaos armor?
Like i mentioned before mutation seems possible, but I don't think such mutations should be mandatory.
I guess possible mutations for anointed could be: multiple arms, multiple breasts, a crab claw, a snake lower body, or even a spider lower body (ive seen the last two as conversions for CoS armies, though I dont think they were anointed)


About riding cold ones, it doesnt seem all that impossible to me, you guys said that most of the elves are not fully devoted, just using slaanesh, also a cold one rider might crave for sensation since his senses are dulled, and slaanesh warship is the only way to feel again.


Also it might be a good idea to build the armylist so you can choose not to use any mortals and have it still be a useful army, that way everyone is happy.


Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:05 am
Profile
Black Guard
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 2:47 pm
Posts: 270
Post 
Ok, many topics, many different opinions and questions, on many levels – from single-unit-rule to idea of army. Will try to comment on all that, but with big questions being my main concern. So:

I. General background and army composition
I think we should remember what was the idea of this project; did write about it in ‘The Cult of Pleasure - a question/suggestion’ (btw Kyrel, could you rename it to something like ‘CoS – general background’ or other to such meaning? Would be a bit more informative), but in short – look at the name of this thread: a Cult of Slaanesh re-write

- For me its: Slaanesh, not Atharti and: re-write, not complete overhaul;

- Background-wise: Slaanesh, his daemons and followers present;

- Game-wise: new version of 6th ed CoS list; so some tweaking of rules, maybe some new units and/or removal of 1, max 2 original ones; Changes Wood Elves got between 5th and 6th ed armybooks are I believe about both the needed and acceptabe level; basicaly, as with official ABs rewrites, one should be able to still use most of his models from previous edition and keep similar fighting style. To put it short –
I believe main ‘target’ of this armylist should be people who played 6th ed CoS list; so we need a list most of them would like, If new people become attracted to it, so the better, but not at the cost of those who already devoted time and money to come up with CoS army - it’s enough that GW screwd them (us) making the list illegal soon after SoC;


Some other thoughts:

1. In SoC fluff Cult is no longer hiding, nor does it nessecarily has to afterwards. TBH, I believe if it would, fielding its army is questionable in itself and it definitly would be needed to leave out Marauders, Warriors, Knights and Anointed (near impossible to hide in Naggaroth), thus changing much of the original list. So while there are different options to choose from concering its status in Naggaroth, ‘we pretend we don’t exist’ is definitly a bad one IMO.


2. Please look at these two lists: <1000 pts> <2000 pts> These are from australian GW site – as usual with GW example lists, rather varied (although both leave out Marauders) and about ‘what’s cool’ than well-thought-out powergaming; I believe if people who made them would have to leave more than 33% at home due to changes in the list, then something might need rethinking. If they have to leave more than 50% it’s IMO a clear sign we’re off. That of course isn’t an answer to all our issues, but still a kind of useful guideline I guess.


3. We do want to create 7th ed list; so I think general army power level should be compared to other 7th ed ABs. This means that it might be more powerfull than some 6th ed armies, but as long as it’s about the level of 7th ed DE I think it’s ok.


4. Now, apart from general army power there is the ‘Cheese aspect’:

- Most of official armybooks allow for cheesy lists to be created. To fully eliminate that there either would be much more complicated rules needed or eliminating many balanced lists as well.

- So what I think our aim in this respect should be is not to go above average level of potential abuse. Again, IMO ‘vanilla’ DE armybook (unlike, for example 7th ed VC) fits that (well, except for PoK maybe ;) ), so should be used for comparison.


5. last side note ;) – I agree with Taserak’s suggestion that the list should be made so that those who want a pure druchii/daemon force can do so without it being an underdog list. Such force would of course be more limited in choice than ‘full CoS’, but would still be more varied than, for example tree-spirit WE list or one-god DoC army.



Below comments on non-druchii parts of the CoS army.

General note – I do agree Druchii cultists – and even moreso Sorceresses - see human Slaanesh followers and Daemons as tools. But, I believe, not tools as in:
‘you’re just a tool, so leave main fighting to us, the druchii, and be of some help there on the flank’
As more druchii way IMO would be:
‘you’re the tool: you do the risky fighting and dying, we take the glory’

So I believe non-druchii parts should be limited to meatshield or offensive CC attacker role, which I believe is already done by choice of units available. Also – except fluff in some cases – no reason to cut down options on non-druchii units; they are brought to battle to fight and while seen as a tool, Sorceress should be pleased if they’re an effective one at their purpose.



II. Chaos Mortals
1. Warrios/Knights Availability
- I believe we all agree that by 6th ed SoC background Warriors/Knights should be both available and limited. I think current line (of 1 unit per Anointed; limited max unit size) is ok, might also be more units, as long as we can find a simple way of them being 25% of army at most (Anointed not included in that).

- As for background I have no problem with envisioning them as Anointed’s retinue. Being (and beliving) one’s a superior being doesn’t mean one won’t accept servants (Slaan and Lizardmen being one example). I do see the 6th ed unit-joining rules problem, still, Dechala and her Tormentors shows it’s more a rule-thing than fluff-thing (might have to do with 20mm base of Anointed or maybe they thought putting one in a Warrior/Knight unit makes a cheesy combo? More on that later)

- After reading a bit on Marauders&Warriors (in short: such division is more in the eyes of Empire people; marauders/warriors rather see themselves as one, just more or less advanced on the path of/blessed by their gods) I think it would be acceptable to include them without Anointed; this however would need new way of limiting their number.

- Balance-wise such limited number of Warriors/Knights doesn’t make for a cheesy list, so is IMO ok. Also they do fulfill the role of reistant unit in the army, which otherwise lacks it.


2. Warriors/Knights Options
- I believe Warriors should have access to upgrades and magical banners. They are elite units, so deserve them balance-wise.

- Fluff-wise, I agree Sorceress wouldn’t probably grant them with one, and that’s why they shouldn’t have access to Treasures of Naggaroth banners. If they have magical banner, they either were granted with it by Slaanesh himself, or got it by defeating some other Warband in Chaos Wastes. So should IMO be able to take one either from Artefacts of Slaanesh (Banner of Wrath, Rapturous Standard) or common list(Warbanner).


3.Marauders
Short and simple:
- they were core in 6th ed CoS, which fits 6th ed fluff and doesn’t hurt army balance, so should stay core.
- Marauder Horsmen are new to the list, but again, fit 6th ed fluff. I believe lack of them would be fluff-wise even more unfitting than lack of footed marauders. Also together with new faster Daemonettes they fill the hole left after core Shades.
<BTW Furies might be left as core-not-counting-towards-core; this maybe leaves us with a bit too much of the core choices, but would give option of fast core in druchii/daemon type CoS list>



III. Daemons
1. Daemon Binding

- I don’t think that Daemon units need to be made different form DoC ones; on the contrary – as both are Daemons appearing in the mortal realm I believe we should keep them same, unless balance requires it.

- For me it’s questionable if additional tactical challange for itself is worth additional rules. It might, if it helps the ‘flavour’ of the army. Binding rules so far promote defensive playstyle, which is contrary to what I believe fits either CoS or its ‘mother-parts’ (DE, DoC, WoC). So from game-play perspective its ‘more complication for less flavour’. Hardly a good deal.

- It also helps the problem of ‘how to give bonus to daemons to balance penalty binding gives’; so twice less addtional rules

- the link between Sorceresses and Daemons can be represented in availability of daemonic units, as already discussed in idea that number of sorceresses limits number of units to be summoned. Nice and simple, and IMO enough in that regard.

As a general note – I am tired of binding rules. Despite coming up with many ideas in that regard we still don’t have a version that I feel would work alright. If you guys are inclined in including them, I believe they do need more work and playtesting, but I myself will remain on ‘Scrap them’ POV for now and direct my energy elsewhere (not that there’s shortage of issues in this project ;) )


2. Daemon Availability
- I believe 1 unit per Sorceress and 2 per Supreme Sorceress is for most lists enough of a restriction.
- It would still be possible to make a cheesy 2000 pts ‘uber-heavy-magic&daemons force’:
# 1 kited-out SS
# 3 kited-out Sorceresses
# 10 Devoted
# 15 Daemonettes
# 10 Daemonettes
# 6 Seekers
# 6 Furies
# 3 Fiends
And still some points for upgrades or some more models in units.

Background-wise it’s just acceptable (convent of sorceresses together with few cultists needed for a ritual summon a daemon army), balance-wise it’s cheese. But, TBH, the cheese part is 10 magic levels in 2000 pt army, which is also perfectly available in regular DE list (where one would also be able to take much more cheesy set of units than these daemons).

Conclusion: I believe current version of limiting daemons is about ok. Would make a little bit more of limitation on daemons in that they require inclusion of Devoted (see below).


3. Daemon Options
- I do belive they should have all options available to them in DoC. As given above, I don’t think their ‘tool-character’ explains cuting them down on that.
- As for magical banners, they don’t get that in DoC, to start with. They do get Daemonic Icons, which are Daemonic Gifts, not MI (one of important diferences being that you can have multiplies of them in the army). So background-wise Sorceresses don’t give nothing away – Icons materialise together with Daemonettes.


4.Furies
- as given in their fluff, they are both most common daemons, and also may vary in form, depending on what is the main power. So where Slaaneshi followers summon daemons, they do get Slaaneshi form. So I believe they fit both visualy and fluff-wise.

- Rule-wise, as mentioned, they are certainly needed if we want mortal-less army option fully viable. Then they should be core, but not count towards minimum – which would also reflect their status of common, but unstable daemons quite nicely.


5. Herald as SC unit upgrade
- we would need background reason for such character to be available only to CoS and not DoC, hard thing to do with a daemon as they are hardly limited by time or space
- he should be rather Alluress (Daemonette Champion) power level IMO if he’s a unit upgrade and cannot leave unit, so does not replace Herald function
-all in all, not worth it in my opinion



On druchii-part of the army:

I. Anointed
1.Anointed stats&options
- he’s stats are virtually the same as in 6th ed. Except he’s only T3 now. Background-wise he worshipps Slaanesh (whose intrest lies otherwhere than physical resilience) and is an elf, so should be less resilient than regular Chaos Lord. In that respect both T3 and T4 are ok. Still, balance-wise reasoning was that T3 characters is an offset of elven armies and being in big part an elf army (or similar in this respect Slaaneshi-daemon army) we decided he should also have T3. This also helps to keep him away from being ‘unkillable tank’, while he still is a bit better than Chaos Lord on the offensive part (Eternal Hatred going a long way here).


2. Anointed’s Warband
- as written earlier, I think Anointed should be allowed to join Warriors/Knights, unless this makes too powerful combination. Needs checking out items/gift combos on Anointed (check CoS Magic Items thread) and playtesting apparently.


3. Anointed magic
- DE Sorcerers also are not part of the Convents
- elves praticed Dark Magic even before sundering
- Anointed (at least most of them, as by 6th ed SoC background) left druchii when Khaine’s cult came to power, so when druchii as a nation already existed

Conclusion: I see no background reason for their magic to be any different. So if we’re to change that it should be because of rule-balance needs. I did propose that myself (with one of their magic levels being effect of Slaaneshi Chaos Gift) but that is rather developing fluff to fit rules than the other way round.


BTW @ Taserak – concerning Anointed look, check his fluff from SoC I posted eariler in this thread (in cyan colour, should be easy to find) – anointed have their whole eyes black, skin may differ from DE as in being either pale bluish or ebony; other visible mutations could appear, but less common than with human Chaos Lords, so not mandatory.
Also, don’t believe in all WAR shows – it’s there for cool look and it may sometimes differ from WFB (like Morathi and Hellebron in WAR and in 7th ed DE AB illustrations), it also has alternate history to WFB.
Background wise AFAIK difference of look between HE and DE goes down to the latter being usually paler (either due to less light in the north or slight effect of chaotic influence) and more likely to have dark hair (having to do with all of them descending from Nagarythe people, I believe). Other than that its clothes, makeup and unpleasant expression on their face. ;)



II. Devoted
1.Stats,skills&cost
- I also, like Kyrel prefere changing name of their special rule rather than the rule itself.

- I believe at 12 pts they were very good unit in 6th list. Now they get EH to that. So I believe those 12 pts is too cheap rather than too expensive and makes them a no-brainer over Daemonttes (especially if any binding rules are involved). Still, a more costy core unit doesn’t seem right to me. That’s why I’d lower their Attacks to 1 basic (so 2A with AHW) and leave them at original 12pts cost. Playtested them in this form in 3 battles so far, and do believe they’re neither over- or under- costed in this way.


2.Availability (Mandatority? ;) )
- giving Devoted two levels of min unit size would be IMO unnessesary complication; don’t see what purpose would that serve.

- As written before, I think the problem with mandatory units is that they limit composition of small (500-1000 pts) forces too much.

- OTOH it doesn’t do anything about their prominence in big (3000+) forces

- Fluff-wise CoS force without Devotees is explainable (Sorceresses might take only lower level cultist in the form warriors or maybe they took only marauders with them, as they expect most of the army to die in certain mission), yet should be rare. So I’d rather find a way to promote their inclusion than make them mandatory.

- How about:

Daemon summoning
Prior to battle Sorceresses and cultists make orgiastic rituals, summoning Slaaneshi daemons to support them in battle. Your army must include at least one unit of Devoted to include daemonic units. Furthermore, you may only take one daemonic unit per each Sorceress and two per each Supreme Sorceress in the army.


A bit more fluffy way would be:
- 1 daemonic unit per S, 2 per SS
- 1 daemonic unit per marked mortal unit, 2 per Devoted unit
- both of these limits must be obeyed

But that is less promoting for Devoted and at the same time too complicated IMO.




III. Shades
- in 7th ed too powerful to be a core unit
- don’t want any sort of a-bit-special-limited-core rules for them, as we already have quite a few specific rules for unit inclusion (daemons, warriors/knights, devoted), so the less, the better.
- not needed in core, as there are Marauder horsmen, M6 Daemonettes and Furies.
- we already have plenty of core choices
Conclusion: leave them in special



IV. CoK
- As discussed previously, it’s quite easy to fit them fluff-wise in CoS army (as they may crave ability to feel they lost)
- Were present in 6th CoS list, so that’s a reason to include them
- Might not be needed if Knights of Chaos are available without Anointed, still would leave druchii/daemon type force without any heavy unit.

- Don’t like the idea of introducing other druchii heavy cavalry – regular DE don’t have them so their background also creates problems and CoK have advantage of already being in the list. (and TBH, Kyrel, isn’t their reason more that you’d want DE heavy cavalry without stupidity? ;) )



Comments on Magic Lores and Effigy of Pleasure next time, as it’s 4 o’clok and in need to get some sleep at last. ;) I believe I covered all other topics, sorry if I missed something – it’s late and there was a lot of it; if it happend please let me know.

P.S. @MartialArtist - didn't notice new post in the CoS Stories/Pictures thread until you mentioned it; will comment as soon as I get some sleep and time to read it. ;)


Last edited by Weenth on Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Wed Nov 12, 2008 3:48 am
Profile
Dark Rider
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 8:58 am
Posts: 130
Location: United States
Post 
I have to say that I agree with almost everything said by the above poster

_________________
Step 1: Find a High Elf
Step 2: Find a preferably sharp object
Step 3: ???
Step 4: 3 Pieces!

my characters
rules
http://www.druchii.net/viewtopic.php?p=609716#609716
fluff
http://www.druchii.net/viewtopic.php?t=50387


Wed Nov 12, 2008 4:24 am
Profile
Black Guard
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 2:47 pm
Posts: 270
Post 
Forgot to include links to aformentioned 6th ed CoS sample army lists in my previous post; already fixed that.

Also, quick comment on Magic Lores:

- After having a look at both of Slaaneshi lores and Dark Magic lore, I believe balance-wise giving Sorceresses access to Daemon Lore of Slaanesh falls in 'might go either way' category;

- Fluff-wise I feel it's wrong to give access to list named Daemon lore to any mortal sorcerer;

Conlusion: I'd be for leaving Daemon Lore of Slaanesh as a unique thing of daemon characters (KoS and Herald); SS can do well without it and we avoid fluff-issues.


Wed Nov 12, 2008 6:11 pm
Profile
Executioner

Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 9:34 pm
Posts: 192
Location: Denmark
Post 
Weenth wrote:
Ok, many topics, many different opinions and questions, on many levels – from single-unit-rule to idea of army. Will try to comment on all that, but with big questions being my main concern. So:

I. General background and army composition
I think we should remember what was the idea of this project; did write about it in ‘The Cult of Pleasure - a question/suggestion’ (btw Kyrel, could you rename it to something like ‘CoS – general background’ or other to such meaning? Would be a bit more informative), but in short – look at the name of this thread: a Cult of Slaanesh re-write

- For me its: Slaanesh, not Atharti and: re-write, not complete overhaul;

- Background-wise: Slaanesh, his daemons and followers present;

- Game-wise: new version of 6th ed CoS list; so some tweaking of rules, maybe some new units and/or removal of 1, max 2 original ones; Changes Wood Elves got between 5th and 6th ed armybooks are I believe about both the needed and acceptable level; basically, as with official ABs rewrites, one should be able to still use most of his models from previous edition and keep similar fighting style. To put it short –
I believe main ‘target’ of this armylist should be people who played 6th ed CoS list; so we need a list most of them would like, If new people become attracted to it, so the better, but not at the cost of those who already devoted time and money to come up with CoS army - it’s enough that GW screwd them (us) making the list illegal soon after SoC;


Some other thoughts:

1. In SoC fluff Cult is no longer hiding, nor does it necessarily has to afterwards. TBH, I believe if it would, fielding its army is questionable in itself and it definitely would be needed to leave out Marauders, Warriors, Knights and Anointed (near impossible to hide in Naggaroth), thus changing much of the original list. So while there are different options to choose from concerning its status in Naggaroth, ‘we pretend we don’t exist’ is definitely a bad one IMO.



You know, we should probably have a small discussion on which “period” we are trying to create the Cult army for.
If it’s supposed to be prior to the Storm of Chaos, then I’d say that this would mean that there shouldn’t be any access at all to Marauders, Chaos Warriors/Knights, and Anointed. I can’t say that I’m really in favour of that option.
If the aim is to create the Cult as it looked during the Storm of Chaos, then what do we really need to change? The army worked well as it were, and in this case, I kind of think that we are spending a whole lot of time on something that should really be pretty easy, as the armylist and rules are all there already, and IMO don’t really need to be changed very much at all. We could argue that Shades should be Special, Marauder Horsemen should be available as Core, and the Magical Items would probably need a makeover, but as I see it, that’s really it. We could then argue over the background fluff, but “gamingwise” that would really be secondary. The “downside” to this option is that it basically scraps all the existing fluff concerning the Druchii Civil War. On the other hand, it would seem that GW officially has turned the clock back to prior to the Storm of Chaos anyway, so arguably Morathi might not even have recruited the marauder tribe(s) on that timeline yet (which arguably invalidates what we are trying to do at the moment…).
Finally we can try and “upgrade” the Cult to fit in with the post Storm of Chaos period. Personally I’d prefer that option, as it IMO represents the most interesting one, and leaves us the most room to manoeuvre with regards to what we’d like to do with the army. On the downside though, it’s by far the most workintensive option, and in order to make the existing fluff fit, we should IMO make the Marauder/Chaos Warrior/Knight/(Spawn) options either significantly more restricted then they were in the 6th ed. or even eliminate them entirely from the list. Elimination would probably fit the best with the fluff, but I agree that it might be a bad idea to eliminate the Human elements entirely.



Weenth wrote:
2. Please look at these two lists: <1000 pts> <2000 pts> These are from australian GW site – as usual with GW example lists, rather varied (although both leave out Marauders) and about ‘what’s cool’ than well-thought-out powergaming; I believe if people who made them would have to leave more than 33% at home due to changes in the list, then something might need rethinking. If they have to leave more than 50% it’s IMO a clear sign we’re off. That of course isn’t an answer to all our issues, but still a kind of useful guideline I guess.



Besides a possible objection to the Chaos Knights in the 2000 pts. army, there is nothing in the two armies that I would object to being in the Cult army today. I’d actually find those two armies more in line with what I’d like to see Cult armies look like, than the Cult armies with loads of Marauders in them. But again. It should ultimately come down to what period of time we want the make the army reflect.

Weenth wrote:
3. We do want to create 7th ed list; so I think general army power level should be compared to other 7th ed ABs. This means that it might be more powerful than some 6th ed armies, but as long as it’s about the level of 7th ed DE I think it’s ok.

4. Now, apart from general army power there is the ‘Cheese aspect’:

- Most of official armybooks allow for cheesy lists to be created. To fully eliminate that there either would be much more complicated rules needed or eliminating many balanced lists as well.

- So what I think our aim in this respect should be is not to go above average level of potential abuse. Again, IMO ‘vanilla’ DE armybook (unlike, for example 7th ed VC) fits that (well, except for PoK maybe ;) ), so should be used for comparison.

5. last side note ;) – I agree with Taserak’s suggestion that the list should be made so that those who want a pure druchii/daemon force can do so without it being an underdog list. Such force would of course be more limited in choice than ‘full CoS’, but would still be more varied than, for example tree-spirit WE list or one-god DoC army.


No objections on this from my side. The army should, of course, be balanced with the other 7th ed. armies, and I’ll support having the option of not having to include Marauders at all, and still have a viable army. Actually, that might be a way of representing whether the army is supposed to be pre, during, or post Storm of Chaos.


Weenth wrote:
Below comments on non-druchii parts of the CoS army.

General note – I do agree Druchii cultists – and even moreso Sorceresses - see human Slaanesh followers and Daemons as tools. But, I believe, not tools as in:
‘you’re just a tool, so leave main fighting to us, the druchii, and be of some help there on the flank’
As more druchii way IMO would be:
‘you’re the tool: you do the risky fighting and dying, we take the glory’

So I believe non-druchii parts should be limited to meatshield or offensive CC attacker role, which I believe is already done by choice of units available. Also – except fluff in some cases – no reason to cut down options on non-druchii units; they are brought to battle to fight and while seen as a tool, Sorceress should be pleased if they’re an effective one at their purpose.


II. Chaos Mortals
1. Warrios/Knights Availability
- I believe we all agree that by 6th ed SoC background Warriors/Knights should be both available and limited. I think current line (of 1 unit per Anointed; limited max unit size) is ok, might also be more units, as long as we can find a simple way of them being 25% of army at most (Anointed not included in that).

- As for background I have no problem with envisioning them as Anointed’s retinue. Being (and beliving) one’s a superior being doesn’t mean one won’t accept servants (Slaan and Lizardmen being one example). I do see the 6th ed unit-joining rules problem, still, Dechala and her Tormentors shows it’s more a rule-thing than fluff-thing (might have to do with 20mm base of Anointed or maybe they thought putting one in a Warrior/Knight unit makes a cheesy combo? More on that later)

- After reading a bit on Marauders&Warriors (in short: such division is more in the eyes of Empire people; marauders/warriors rather see themselves as one, just more or less advanced on the path of/blessed by their gods) I think it would be acceptable to include them without Anointed; this however would need new way of limiting their number.

- Balance-wise such limited number of Warriors/Knights doesn’t make for a cheesy list, so is IMO ok. Also they do fulfill the role of reistant unit in the army, which otherwise lacks it.


When it comes to limiting their numbers, the most simple way of doing it is to just move all of the Marauders into the Special section, and all Warriors into the Rare section. This serves two purposes. 1) You get a limit on how many of these units you get to see in the army, compared with the Druchii elements. 2) It allows us to advance the fluff to post Storm of Chaos where most of the Human elements of the Cult army will have been killed off during the Lustria campaign, or enslaved following the end of the ensuing Civil War. From a fluff perspective, I believe that we would be able to defend that Morathi still being able to call on a limited number of surviving tribes. By doing things this way, we continue to allow access to the Chaos Human troops, but just not in the same qty. as during the Storm of Chaos.


Weenth wrote:
2. Warriors/Knights Options
- I believe Warriors should have access to upgrades and magical banners. They are elite units, so deserve them balance-wise.

- Fluff-wise, I agree Sorceress wouldn’t probably grant them with one, and that’s why they shouldn’t have access to Treasures of Naggaroth banners. If they have magical banner, they either were granted with it by Slaanesh himself, or got it by defeating some other Warband in Chaos Wastes. So should IMO be able to take one either from Artefacts of Slaanesh (Banner of Wrath, Rapturous Standard) or common list(Warbanner).


Agreed.


Weenth wrote:
3.Marauders
Short and simple:
- they were core in 6th ed CoS, which fits 6th ed fluff and doesn’t hurt army balance, so should stay core.
- Marauder Horsmen are new to the list, but again, fit 6th ed fluff. I believe lack of them would be fluff-wise even more unfitting than lack of footed marauders. Also together with new faster Daemonettes they fill the hole left after core Shades.
<BTW Furies might be left as core-not-counting-towards-core; this maybe leaves us with a bit too much of the core choices, but would give option of fast core in druchii/daemon type CoS list>


Heh. Basically I think that this particular issue will have to be dictated by which period we are trying to depict the Cult in. As I’ve written before, if we go after pre or post Storm of Chaos, then I believe that there would be a significant difference in how common Marauders would be in the army. As I’ve also said elsewhere, then I believe that it will be most interesting to describe the Cult in the post Storm of Chaos setting, even if it would appear that GW has decided not to advance the setting to that time (despite having created fluff for it already…). Anyway. As I’d like to see the focus be on the Druchii and their relationship with the Cult, then I believe that Marauders and Chaos Warriors/Knights should be kept out of the Core section, and moved to the Special (Marauders + Horsemen), and Rare (Warriors/Knights). If we necessarily want to remove Shades from the Core section of the army, and replace them with a Fast Cavalry unit, then I suggest that we move the Dark Riders from the Special section to the Core section in stead, as I believe that this will be a more logical step.
But again. If we are simply “updating” the 6th ed. Cult army to 7th ed rules, and focusing on the Cult during the Storm of Chaos, then why make changes to what goes where at all? Unless something is obviously broken when playtested.

Weenth wrote:

III. Daemons
1. Daemon Binding

- I don’t think that Daemon units need to be made different form DoC ones; on the contrary – as both are Daemons appearing in the mortal realm I believe we should keep them same, unless balance requires it.

- For me it’s questionable if additional tactical challange for itself is worth additional rules. It might, if it helps the ‘flavour’ of the army. Binding rules so far promote defensive playstyle, which is contrary to what I believe fits either CoS or its ‘mother-parts’ (DE, DoC, WoC). So from game-play perspective it’s ‘more complication for less flavour’. Hardly a good deal.

- It also helps the problem of ‘how to give bonus to daemons to balance penalty binding gives’; so twice less additional rules

- the link between Sorceresses and Daemons can be represented in availability of daemonic units, as already discussed in idea that number of sorceresses limits number of units to be summoned. Nice and simple, and IMO enough in that regard.

As a general note – I am tired of binding rules. Despite coming up with many ideas in that regard we still don’t have a version that I feel would work alright. If you guys are inclined in including them, I believe they do need more work and playtesting, but I myself will remain on ‘Scrap them’ POV for now and direct my energy elsewhere (not that there’s shortage of issues in this project ;) )


You know, despite being behind several of the different suggestions for possible binding rules, I’ll support Weenth’s take on the issue here as being the best approach. I’ll accept the Binding rules for the additional tactical challenge it would pose, and the extra “flavour” it might add, but the best solution would be to just represent the Binding link between Daemons and Sorceresses with a limit on how many Daemonic unit you can bring in the army.
Depending on the final version of which units goes into which categories (Core, Special, Rare), and what, if any, special rules we decide on, I’d agree or disagree that Daemonic units should have access to their normal “upgrades” or not. No matter what though, I’ll agree that it is by far the easiest thing just to leave the units as described in their entries in their own armybooks.


Weenth wrote:
2. Daemon Availability
- I believe 1 unit per Sorceress and 2 per Supreme Sorceress is for most lists enough of a restriction.
- It would still be possible to make a cheesy 2000 pts ‘uber-heavy-magic&daemons force’:
# 1 kited-out SS
# 3 kited-out Sorceresses
# 10 Devoted
# 15 Daemonettes
# 10 Daemonettes
# 6 Seekers
# 6 Furies
# 3 Fiends
And still some points for upgrades or some more models in units.

Background-wise it’s just acceptable (convent of sorceresses together with few cultists needed for a ritual summon a daemon army), balance-wise it’s cheese. But, TBH, the cheese part is 10 magic levels in 2000 pt army, which is also perfectly available in regular DE list (where one would also be able to take much more cheesy set of units than these daemons).

Conclusion: I believe current version of limiting daemons is about ok. Would make a little bit more of limitation on daemons in that they require inclusion of Devoted (see below).


I more or less covered this above, but again. Weenth and I agree on this.


Weenth wrote:
3. Daemon Options
- I do belive they should have all options available to them in DoC. As given above, I don’t think their ‘tool-character’ explains cuting them down on that.
- As for magical banners, they don’t get that in DoC, to start with. They do get Daemonic Icons, which are Daemonic Gifts, not MI (one of important differences being that you can have multiplies of them in the army). So background-wise Sorceresses don’t give anything away – Icons materialise together with Daemonettes.


Good argument. I’ll buy that.


Weenth wrote:
4.Furies
- as given in their fluff, they are both most common daemons, and also may vary in form, depending on what is the main power. So where Slaaneshi followers summon daemons, they do get Slaaneshi form. So I believe they fit both visually and fluff-wise.

- Rule-wise, as mentioned, they are certainly needed if we want mortal-less army option fully viable. Then they should be core, but not count towards minimum – which would also reflect their status of common, but unstable daemons quite nicely.


Good enough for me. Agreed.

Weenth wrote:
5. Herald as SC unit upgrade
- we would need background reason for such character to be available only to CoS and not DoC, hard thing to do with a daemon as they are hardly limited by time or space
- he should be rather Alluress (Daemonette Champion) power level IMO if he’s a unit upgrade and cannot leave unit, so does not replace Herald function
-all in all, not worth it in my opinion


I thought that the Herald was always discussed as being a regular Hero type character!? If we are looking to add an option to let regular Daemonette units have the ASF rule, and we are talking about allowing a Hero (or similar type character) as a unit upgrade, then I’ll oppose that. I’d say No to a Herald Hero option as well.


Weenth wrote:

On druchii-part of the army:

I. Anointed
1.Anointed stats&options
- he’s stats are virtually the same as in 6th ed. Except he’s only T3 now. Background-wise he worships Slaanesh (whose interest lies elsewhere than physical resilience) and is an elf, so should be less resilient than regular Chaos Lord. In that respect both T3 and T4 are ok. Still, balance-wise reasoning was that T3 characters is an offset of elven armies and being in big part an elf army (or similar in this respect Slaaneshi-daemon army) we decided he should also have T3. This also helps to keep him away from being ‘unkillable tank’, while he still is a bit better than Chaos Lord on the offensive part (Eternal Hatred going a long way here).


Why on earth are we talking about changing the Anointed to T3??? Because he’s an Elf and if we don’t then he’ll risk being an unstoppable tank!? Sorry guys, but I have to differ on this one (too ;)). Yes, he’s arguably an Elf, but he’s also a 5000 year old Elf that quite frankly is better compared to a Chaos Lord in all respects than an Elf lord. Chaos Lords are T5. T4 for the Anointed is fine. T3 might be more “Elf like”, and it would also make him more killable, but allow me to say this. T4 is not all that hard to kill in the first place, especially not by for warmachines and enemy characters (which I think is the kind of enemies that will be gunning for the Anointed in the first place.). Also, we are talking about a character that is quite easily taking up close to a full quarter of an army. Anything with a pricetag in that area shouldn’t be something that is going to fall too easily.
Eternal Hatred is admittingly something that I hadn’t considered for the Anointed. Frankly I’d forgotten that he had Hatred in the first place, and I’ll have to admit that I think that giving him Eternal Hatred is a bad idea. 1) I think that it’s overpowered, at least without giving him a cost increase, and 2) In my view, Eternal Hatred is something that had developed in the Druchii since the Sundering. The Anointed has been touring around the Chaos Wastes for all that time. Why would they develop an overt hatred towards all other races? I’ll buy that they still have Hatred against the High Elves, but not having had to live with the constant indoctrination that “High Elves are usurpers to the Phoenix Throne and suck!” ought to, in my mind at least, mean that they might not have the same kind of Hatred against the High Elves as the average Druchii of “today”. Basically my suggestion is that we retain the Anointed as T4, but don’t give him Eternal Hatred, but only regular Hatred (High Elves). Yes it breaks a little with the common trend with the Druchii, but I believe that it’s defendable.


Weenth wrote:
2. Anointed’s Warband
- as written earlier, I think Anointed should be allowed to join Warriors/Knights, unless this makes too powerful combination. Needs checking out items/gift combos on Anointed (check CoS Magic Items thread) and playtesting apparently.


I’ll admit that my view on the Anointed is as a sort of solitary wanderer, which in my mind would explain why you can not use one as the army General. Basically he’s not a leader type, as I see him. For the same reason I’m a little opposed to having him be able to join Chaos Warrior/Knight/Marauder units, and similar to let the presence of an Anointed determine how many units of Chaos Mortals you can include in the army. That being said though, I must concede that it is an “elegant” way of limiting the number of Warrior/Knight units within the army. Ultimately we should probably talk a little about what our vision of the Anointed is. But we should probably do that in another thread. And yes. This issue will need some playtesting.


Weenth wrote:
3. Anointed magic
- DE Sorcerers also are not part of the Convents
- Elves practiced Dark Magic even before sundering
- Anointed (at least most of them, as by 6th ed. SoC background) left Druchii when Khaine’s cult came to power, so when Druchii as a nation already existed

Conclusion: I see no background reason for their magic to be any different. So if we’re to change that it should be because of rule-balance needs. I did propose that myself (with one of their magic levels being effect of Slaaneshi Chaos Gift) but that is rather developing fluff to fit rules than the other way round.


I can pretty much agree with Weenth on this as well. I’d modify the Lore access the Anointed has access to though, compared with which lores a regular Sorceress has access to. I’d to this for fluff reasons, as I believe that this would underpin the fact that Anointed aren’t your average Druchii. Basically I’d provide an Anointed access to Dark Magic and the Daemon Lore of Slaanesh, and nothing else. Dark Magic for the same reason mentioned by Weenth, and the Daemon Lore of Slaanesh because I believe that it would be quite fitting for a creature like an Anointed, who has travelled the Chaos Wastes (and possibly the Realms of Chaos themselves?) for 5000 years to be a bit different than your average Sorcererss/Mage.


Weenth wrote:
II. Devoted
1.Stats,skills&cost
- I also, like Kyrel, prefer changing name of their special rule rather than the rule itself.

- I believe at 12 pts they were very good unit in 6th list. Now they get EH to that. So I believe those 12 pts is too cheap rather than too expensive and makes them a no-brainer over Daemonttes (especially if any binding rules are involved). Still, a more costy core unit doesn’t seem right to me. That’s why I’d lower their Attacks to 1 basic (so 2A with AHW) and leave them at original 12pts cost. Playtested them in this form in 3 battles so far, and do believe they’re neither over- or under- costed in this way.


To be honest guys, rather than reducing their combat potential by educing their no. of Attacks, I'd MUCH rather remove the Eternal Hatred, and just give them regular Hatred (High Elves). The Devoted worked fine like that in 6th ed., and if we want a fluff explanation, then I believe that we can say that since the Devoted has given themselves over to Slaanesh, and devoted their existences to sensual and mental gratification, then their world don't revolve around their hatred towards the High Elves to the same extend as the rest of the Druchii race.
While I can probably agree that 2A might not be unbalanced as such, reducing their no. of Attacks by 1/3 is pretty drastic, and it effectively lowers their potential damage output by 1/3 as well.
But this too is something that we should really be playtesting, in order to get some concrete results to compare.

Weenth wrote:
2.Availability (Mandatority? ;) )
- giving Devoted two levels of min unit size would be IMO unnecessary complication; don’t see what purpose would that serve.

- As written before, I think the problem with mandatory units is that they limit composition of small (500-1000 pts) forces too much.

- OTOH it doesn’t do anything about their prominence in big (3000+) forces

- Fluff-wise CoS force without Devotees is explainable (Sorceresses might take only lower level cultist in the form warriors or maybe they took only marauders with them, as they expect most of the army to die in certain mission), yet should be rare. So I’d rather find a way to promote their inclusion than make them mandatory.

- How about:
Daemon summoning
Prior to battle Sorceresses and cultists make orgiastic rituals, summoning Slaaneshi daemons to support them in battle. Your army must include at least one unit of Devoted to include daemonic units. Furthermore, you may only take one daemonic unit per each Sorceress and two per each Supreme Sorceress in the army.


A bit more fluffy way would be:
- 1 daemonic unit per S, 2 per SS
- 1 daemonic unit per marked mortal unit, 2 per Devoted unit
- both of these limits must be obeyed

But that is less promoting for Devoted and at the same time too complicated IMO.


The idea is interesting, but as you say yourself Weenth, it might be adding more complexity to the game than we really need to. Personally I’m in favour of keeping the 1 unit mandatory unit in the army, but I do see what you mean with regards to restricting the composition of small armies. I’ll throw in another suggestion though, which I believe would favour both sides of the argument:

You must include at least one unit of Devoted in the army per 2000 pts. worth of army (0+ in 0-1999 pts., 1+ in 2000-3999 pts. etc.).



Weenth wrote:
III. Shades
- in 7th ed too powerful to be a core unit
- don’t want any sort of a-bit-special-limited-core rules for them, as we already have quite a few specific rules for unit inclusion (daemons, warriors/knights, devoted), so the less, the better.
- not needed in core, as there are Marauder horsemen, M6 Daemonettes and Furies.
- we already have plenty of core choices
Conclusion: leave them in special


Something more for us to disagree on (at least for the time being…). I’d prefer to keep Shades within the Core section, as:

1) They were Core in 6th ed., even though they were Special in the regular Druchii army.
2) I believe that this would help differentiate the Cult from the regular Druchii army.
3) 16+ pts./model is pretty steep for a Core infantry unit, so that alone would make me think that people would limit the number of them within the army, least they end up with an extremely small army. That being said, I admit that there could be a problem with armies consisting of BS5 Shades and nothing else. I’d let it come to a test though, as I believe that it would be a significant minority that would create a Shade army.
4) I’d leave Marauder Horsemen and all Daemons as Special choices, and so I would still see a use for Shades within the Core selection.

Despite that I agree that adding special rules just for the hell of it is a bad thing, I still believe that the best option in this situation would be to allow 1 unit of Shades pr. 1000 pts. count as Core, and any additional units as Special. But again. We’ll ultimately need playtesting.


Weenth wrote:
IV. CoK
- As discussed previously, it’s quite easy to fit them fluff-wise in CoS army (as they may crave ability to feel they lost)
- Were present in 6th CoS list, so that’s a reason to include them
- Might not be needed if Knights of Chaos are available without Anointed, still would leave Druchii/daemon type force without any heavy unit.

- Don’t like the idea of introducing other druchii heavy cavalry – regular DE don’t have them so their background also creates problems and CoK have advantage of already being in the list. (and TBH, Kyrel, isn’t their reason more that you’d want DE heavy cavalry without stupidity? ;) )


Heh. I can’t rule out that my utter hatred of the Stupidity suffering Cold Ones play a part in my preferring Barded Dark Steeds to Cold Ones ;)
Since the general preference rgd. the Dumb Ones seems to be to include them as a Special entry, then I’ll back down on the fight on this issue. I’m not forced to include them, and I can win without a unit of heavy cavalry (but DAMN I wish that the Druchii army included a unit of heavy cavalry that I could rely on doing what I want it to do, WHEN I want/need it to do it!).

/Kyrel


Last edited by Kyrel on Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:49 am, edited 2 times in total.



Thu Nov 13, 2008 1:20 am
Profile
Corsair
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 8:20 am
Posts: 90
Post 
I just had the thought that it would be easier for us to discuss all of this stuff if we had something to refer to and base our discussions around, so I might make a "Cult Of Slaanesh" document that we can add and subtract to as the project evolves, also giving easy reference for those that want to playtest (Weenth: I'm happy to do some too, but just getting started with my army and mine would be on probs 1000 point max basis and I don't have a lot of experience but wiser heads at my group could help with balance and stuff so if we had some recorded and referenceable rules than I'd be able to do some playtesting). To do this I need some way of being able to post a Microsoft Word document on this website or somewhere else where everyone would be able to get to it. Does anyone know how this can be done?

MA

_________________
Strike hard and fast, but strike silently.

Revive the Cult! http://www.druchii.net/viewtopic.php?t= ... sc&start=0


Thu Nov 13, 2008 6:52 am
Profile
Black Guard
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 2:47 pm
Posts: 270
Post 
Kyrel wrote:
You know, we should probably have a small discussion on which “period” we are trying to create the Cult army for.
If it’s supposed to be prior to the Storm of Chaos, then I’d say that this would mean that there shouldn’t be any access at all to Marauders, Chaos Warriors/Knights, and Anointed. I can’t say that I’m really in favour of that option.
If the aim is to create the Cult as it looked during the Storm of Chaos, then what do we really need to change? The army worked well as it were, and in this case, I kind of think that we are spending a whole lot of time on something that should really be pretty easy, as the armylist and rules are all there already, and IMO don’t really need to be changed very much at all. We could argue that Shades should be Special, Marauder Horsemen should be available as Core, and the Magical Items would probably need a makeover, but as I see it, that’s really it. We could then argue over the background fluff, but “gamingwise” that would really be secondary. The “downside” to this option is that it basically scraps all the existing fluff concerning the Druchii Civil War. On the other hand, it would seem that GW officially has turned the clock back to prior to the Storm of Chaos anyway, so arguably Morathi might not even have recruited the marauder tribe(s) on that timeline yet (which arguably invalidates what we are trying to do at the moment…).
Finally we can try and “upgrade” the Cult to fit in with the post Storm of Chaos period. Personally I’d prefer that option, as it IMO represents the most interesting one, and leaves us the most room to manoeuvre with regards to what we’d like to do with the army. On the downside though, it’s by far the most workintensive option, and in order to make the existing fluff fit, we should IMO make the Marauder/Chaos Warrior/Knight/(Spawn) options either significantly more restricted then they were in the 6th ed. or even eliminate them entirely from the list. Elimination would probably fit the best with the fluff, but I agree that it might be a bad idea to eliminate the Human elements entirely.
While GW did turn it's back on Storm of Chaos events they did not erase it as a whole. It goes get small mentions in new ABs (like WoC), just in such a way as not push anything futher.

What GW also did was creating an alternate 'pocket universe' for WAR, as together with Mythic Entertaiment they decided they don't want Archaon's presence, which would take focus from the main Chaos (Tzeentchian) character of computer game. WAR also includes spell-casting khainite priest, who was conciously omitted from WFB (Gav was aware of him during designing 7th ed DE). That is not a new thing for GW really, as they often allow lesser or bigger modifications in their 'off-side' projects (just look at Warhammer Quest or - most notably - Blood Bowl). WFRP, while checked strictly at the beginning of its 2nd ed, also got (from what I've gathered - I don't play nor follow it no longer) some of that freedom in later supplements.


Anyway, as already said, I believe our re-write should keep faith to 6th ed CoS army list. This is closest to middle option of yours, but I both don't think it's as limited in background nor as easy in rules aspect (as most of disscussion in this 4 (5?)-page thread, as well as the other CoS threads is of importance for this option).

I.Background options:

1. As I wrote in 'General Background' thread, such army may be placed not only during SoC, but also directly afterwards.


2. True, that it probably means we're leaving Flesh&blood campaign material aside; still, it's unofficial and keeping faith to nature of 6th list is IMO more important that that.


3. It does not require us to do any big decisions as to what happend afterwards, we just stop the timline there (just like it is stopped in other ABs) so as to still allow original army compostion and have an option of campaign about future events (option for players, not for pushing background in CoS 'armybook' further)


Important note: as official fluff ends at SoC it is up to us to decide upon what goes afterwards. Each of us may like one idea more and other ideas less, but still, whatever decision, focus should be on:
'It's ok, as makes sense and allows keeping 6th ed list composition'
and definitly not on:
'It's so cool; so what if it makes many 6th ed lists invalid?'



II.Rule needs & options:

1. We need to update unit/army/items etc. rules according to 7th ed DE, DoC and WoC


2. We need to tweak the outcome as to keep each unit and army as a whole balanced


- one example is Devoted with 6th ed stats and EH become too powerful for their points

- another is that Shades no longer fit in core; true, they were moved from special to core in 6th ed; but then they were 'you're average Joe-elf' with scouting, RXB and option for LA. In 7th they have WS5,BS5 and option for either 2HW or AHW on top of that, which brings them closer (and in armour aspect a bit better) than WE rare(!) choice - Waywatchers; while they don't have other Waywatcher's special rules (Lethal Shot & Forest Stalkers) they shouldn't go below Special IMO

- there is a couple of other balance issues, all I belive already mentioned in this thread


3. We should include units, which, while from background perspective should definitly be there, were not put in 6th ed list

- Yes, Marauder Horsmen, I'm lookin at you ;) with Hung background it's really hard to explain why just the footsoldiers appear.

- This also (IMO at least) goes to daemonic units (re/)introduced in 7th ed - Fiend and Herald; from background perspective I don't see a reason why Sorceresses should leave out some type of god's servants when summoning them to battle. A herald, might be argued as a not appropriate, being a character choice, but as we already got both Mortal Chaos character and lord-level daemon character in 6th ed, I believe Herald should be in also.


4. We might (although don't have to) include a new unit

- Here goes Effigy of Excess (or whatever the name would be) - as WoC reintroduced an altar-type unit for WoC and DE already have one, I guess it does fit if we have one of our own. Still, that's an option, not a reqirement, so should be scrapped if crashes with balance of the list (which I belive and hope is not the case ;) )


5. We should introduce new Special Characters
- original CoS had only one and in 7th ed GW put SC as integral part of the army list options


6. We should get rid of plain 0-1 or 1+ choices as GW has done in its recent ABs.

- 0-1 choices I believe we've already dealt with

- we do have some options to change +1 of Devotes; I believe '1 unit per 2000 pts' is a simple way of that; I dislike its purley arbitrary character a bit, especiall as my proposition of binding it with 'summoning restrictions' works IMO as well (at least up to 3999+ points; I dislike obligatory units, but see a reason to inclusion of at least 2 units in 4000+ battles). I do have some 'paternal sentiment' here though. ;)



Kyrel wrote:
Besides a possible objection to the Chaos Knights in the 2000 pts. army, there is nothing in the two armies that I would object to being in the Cult army today. I’d actually find those two armies more in line with what I’d like to see Cult armies look like, than the Cult armies with loads of Marauders in them. But again. It should ultimately come down to what period of time we want the make the army reflect.

Actually, current restrictions for deamon inclusion we've got mean that there should be 1of2 (1000 pt list) and 2of3 (2000 pt list) daemonic units left out. Also if its '1 Warrior/Knights unit per Anointed' then either of them have to go out from bigger list.

This all still leaves these lists at: 815 pts and 1502 pts (if leaving the priceiest units in; which also means Warriors in and Knights out in this case), so is acceptable IMO.

BTW I think lack of marauders within these list may come from them being an underdog in 6th ed, when compared to DE warriors (better stats&options, same cost). The only reason to take Marauders over Warriors then was fluff-coolness (which made me take them ;) )




MartialArtist wrote:
I just had the thought that it would be easier for us to discuss all of this stuff if we had something to refer to and base our discussions around, so I might make a "Cult Of Slaanesh" document that we can add and subtract to as the project evolves, also giving easy reference for those that want to playtest (Weenth: I'm happy to do some too, but just getting started with my army and mine would be on probs 1000 point max basis and I don't have a lot of experience but wiser heads at my group could help with balance and stuff so if we had some recorded and referenceable rules than I'd be able to do some playtesting). To do this I need some way of being able to post a Microsoft Word document on this website or somewhere else where everyone would be able to get to it. Does anyone know how this can be done?


- I think such a document would be a useful thing, I use one I've made myself for my games; still, I believe we need to finalise discussion on army basics before that, as otherwise there is hardly such a base.

- Unfortunatly I can't help you with document posting issue. :(

- We need this army to work at different sizes as well as official GW ones, so at least 1000-3000 pts range is definitly in for playtesting I belive. So your input in this respect would be very welcome. :)


Ok, that's all for today. ;)

[edit reason: misspelling corrected]


Last edited by Weenth on Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:21 am, edited 1 time in total.



Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:34 am
Profile
Slave on the Altar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 7:36 am
Posts: 6
Post 
I had an idea.
I have a feeling that some of you guys wont agree with this but I was thinking about the character of an anointed.
Perhaps anointed shouldn't get hatred.
I know it might make him seem less dark elfy.
but heres how i saw it:

Dark elves hate things, its just what they do, perhaps is their extreme worship of Khaine, but this is a Slaanesh elf, I thought of him as a charismatic warlord, eager to experience new sensations, and other generic slaaneshy things like that.

And I thought of a third option:
Anointed might not be as extreme as mortal slaanesh worshipers, he has to keep his dignity as a dark elf after all.
Perhaps the slaanesh traits could balance out the khainite traits and he might be a more balanced and centered dark elf, calmly appreciating all aspects of life and death, and maybe even able to crack a smile once in a while.

This could be bringing him too far away from what a dark elf should be, but its only just an idea.


Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:48 am
Profile
Slave on the Altar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:10 am
Posts: 8
Location: Hong Kong
But if the anointed doesn't have hatred anymore, people might object!


Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:46 am
Profile
Slave on the Altar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:10 am
Posts: 8
Location: Hong Kong
Post 
And I think Khaine doesn't have anything to do with the dark elves' hatred, they hate everybody is just because they have been misguided.[


Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:51 am
Profile
Black Guard
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 2:47 pm
Posts: 270
Post 
Agreed about hatred. Although worshipping Khaine may encourage Hatred, it's rather the other way - general hatred of everyone makes Khaine a popular deity choice among DE. What also shows that Khaine worship and Eternal Hatred are not the same is the fact that Dark Elves get EH as general army rule, while in 7th ed fluff Khaine is no longer their sole god.

BTW for current idea of Anointed rules check here.

_________________
Join the Pink side! ;)

7th ed Cult of Slaanesh
projectlinky here


Wed Jul 15, 2009 12:28 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 91 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software