The Cult of Slaanesh - Army list entries (rules)

[Martialartist]

I'm having trouble following all of this argument over Warriors v Marauders, so I think I'll just stay out of this one and wait for a result.

In the meantime, I'll focus on a bit more stuff for the campaign, maybe another story, and DEFINITELY that editing for Weenth. This should all get posted up once I've done something meaningful about it.

I'll also be watching our "feedback" thread.

Have a happy new year everyone.

MA

[Kyrel]

Weenth. I just read your last post/reply, and I'm probably too tired right now, to make a decently considered answer. I'll get back to you when I'm more awake.

I'll make one comment though. You are right with regards to my two main reasons to be against increasing the cost of the DE Warriors.

- I have problems justifying the increase from a fluff perspective. This one I'm open to arguing about, since this is a Cult army, not a regular DE army.

- My perception of the value of Marauders vs. Warriors under different conditions. This is the main problem I have, and this we can probably discuss until the End of Times (pun intended), because this is down to personal opinions and experiences, and hence it's damned difficult to argue about in a rational and objective fashion. *Sigh* To be continued...

/Kyrel

[Kyrel]

OK. I've got a bit of time now, so here goes...

Weenth. Let's ignore the fluff issue I have with increasing the cost of the Warriors, and focus on the other problem.

As I recall, we are trying to find an agreeable solution to how we fulfill the following problem:

- DE Warriors should be viable as mainstay combat units.
- DE Warriors should not be the best choice as sacrificial units.
- Marauders should be the better choice for sacrificial units.
- Marauders should be a viable choice as mainstay combat units.

None of the above things are really a problem to achieve individually, but when combined it becomes a challenge when we also have to make sure that neither of the two units become a no-brainer choice as a mainstay fighting unit.

It is my impression that our present problem lies with how to balance the cost of the Marauders vs. the Warriors, when we start adding upgrades to the two units. Especially since we want both of the units to be about equally good choices when upgraded to combat "mainstay combat duty".

As I've understood, you'd prefer to focus on situations where the armament is identical for the two units. Fair enough, let's start there. I'll add though, that the units still need to be balanced when the units are not armed in an identical fashion. I'll return to this, but I'll just throw in here that perhaps we will have to look at the different options each unit have available, in order to achieve the balance we are looking for.

Anyway. At the end of the day, I suppose that the majority of the argument comes down to whether a 1 pt. difference between the two unit types is right or not, when both units have LA, HW, & Shield?

It seems obvious that our experiences and opinions differ with regards to the value of the different stats and abilities that set the two units apart. I believe that the 1 pt. difference is enough, if the units are to remain equally balanced choices; you appear to disagree.

You know, if I disregard my own experiences with the two units, then I'd have to agree with you that you can probably justify a 2 pts. difference between the two units, when you simply compare stats and special rules. My problem is that were I to make an army with the mainstay unit being either Marauders or Warriors, then I'd pick the Marauders, if I were to have a 2 pts. difference between the two units, when armed identically. The additional battlefield value of the Warriors overall better stats just isn't high enough for me to not take the cheaper Marauders, and spend the saved points elsewhere in the army. With a unit of 20 with LA, Shield, HW, and full Command, I save 35 pts. taking the Marauders, if the Marauders are priced at 20(*4+1+1)+20, and the Warriors at 20*(7+1)+15. I just can't justify +35 pts. when I compare what I get in terms of actual combat power and ability to stick around. 15 pts. I can justify (DE at base 6 pts.).
The smaller the units are, when we compare them, the smaller the cost difference becomes, but similarly the other way around. I don't know what unit sizes you have normally seen, and at which pts. levels, but in the 2-3000 pts. range, I've mostly seen units in the sizes of 16-20 for regular Core type infantry. (Some variations of course occurs, depending on the unit's role, base cost, and the overall army strategy, i.e. the MSU approach).

If you believe that we need to somehow improve the Marauders, in order to make the "equal" to the Warriors, when equipped for mainstay fighting, how about just giving them a free Mark of Slaanesh? It's not a huge upgrade, but it makes them better in their role as "meat shields", it's in character with the army theme, and it also gives the "mainstay" Marauders a better chance of reaching their enemies in the face of casualties, as well as sticking around if their comrades start running away.

OK. I've run out of time for now. Later.


/Kyrel

[Weenth]

As I've understood, you'd prefer to focus on situations where the armament is identical for the two units. Fair enough, let's start there. I'll add though, that the units still need to be balanced when the units are not armed in an identical fashion. I'll return to this, but I'll just throw in here that perhaps we will have to look at the different options each unit have available, in order to achieve the balance we are looking for.

Agreed about different arms balancing. As to what I prefere, currently I actually prefere not to have identical aramament option for both units; This probably wasn't clear as my last post was quite long and my idea developed as I was writing it, so there are kinda two ideas there:

I.Starting point: Balancing identical equipment option (A variant; written in cyan)

II.Conclusion: Removing identical equipment option and balancing different ones [B, C and D variants; written in cyan]:

1. Marauders (option of LA and/or shield in all cases) with either:
- simply HW
- flails
- Great Weapons

2. Warriors (obligatory LA, option of shield in all cases) with either:
- HW & RHB
- spears
- RXBs*

*listing this one for sake of completness only; as Crossbowmen unit has different role (shooting or possibly versilate shooting&CC unit) to all other options (purely or mostly CC) it's kinda outside Marauders vs Warriors problem.

Now, I believe the second option (no identical equipment) does better way towards balancing, so while my thinking began with identical equipment, I currently see the other options (C in particular) as better.

With that in mind, I'm giving my thoughts on identical equipment option:

- one more note: it seems our common experience that 16-20 is most often used Warrior unit size; I'll use 20-strong unit as example as it's easier to caculate partial points in 'per model' PV count then.

It seems obvious that our experiences and opinions differ with regards to the value of the different stats and abilities that set the two units apart. I believe that the 1 pt. difference is enough, if the units are to remain equally balanced choices; you appear to disagree.

Yep, especially as having cheaper CG that makes the effective difference even less than 1 pt. Still, IMO it's not as much about personal preferences of two of us, but rather (potential) CoS players as a whole.

I used Marauders (as mainstay) in 6th ed when they were clearly worse choice than Warriors - purely beacuse of miniatures & fluff reasons; you've also rarely used Warriors as CC unit; sill, there are plenty people who used them in 6th ed CoS and I believe the final test of 'balance issue' here will be how many 7th ed CoS players will use either as mainstay. If - among those picking list with efficiency in mind - there will be about half picking each of these two options, then I believe we'll be able to say it's been done right.

If you believe that we need to somehow improve the Marauders, in order to make the "equal" to the Warriors, when equipped for mainstay fighting, how about just giving them a free Mark of Slaanesh? It's not a huge upgrade, but it makes them better in their role as "meat shields", it's in character with the army theme, and it also gives the "mainstay" Marauders a better chance of reaching their enemies in the face of casualties, as well as sticking around if their comrades start running away.

Now, that's a new idea, certainly helps with balancing Warriors & Marauders against each other (as MoS is 10 pts it would equal to 1/2 pt per model). I do have two problems with it though:

1. While they would be balanced against each other, IMO it wouldn't be so against other armies. We would have two dirt cheap (considering their abilites) core units, which I consider a bad thing from the whole list power level POV.

I believe a way to solve that problem would be +1 point raise on both of them - so Marauders 5 pts basic (with HW & MoS) and Warriors 7 pts basic (with HW and LA). This way we would keep their cost in relation to each other and thus relative attractivness of both entries.

Not an ideal solution though, as they would be both probably closer to 'ok-ish' rather than 'good' units; still, IMO that'd be more acceptable than two 'dirt cheap' ones, especially considering that the list we're desiging is unofficial, 'opponent's permission required' type.


2. The bigger problem for me comes from fluff and 'feel' of those units. Obligatory MoS on Marauders means that if there are units fleeing because of, for example, panic it'd be the DE. IMO it would be wrong, as it goes against 'professional soldiers' feel of Warriors.


So, all in all I still prefere the idea of simply not letting DE Warriors have exactly same build as Marauders (that is, no option for only HW+Shield+LA). Waiting to hear your thoughts on that one, especially the C) variant I've given last time.

[Kyrel]

It's a little too late in the night for a long answer, but a couple of quick comments from me.

Your option C:
Arguably this takes us back towards the standard DE Spearman that we moved away from. OK, that's an option. It's not solving our problem though, since every single unit (monsters and similar excluded) in the game comes default with a Hand Weapon. I may be mistaken in my memory, but I believe that it's in the core rules of the game. To be honest I'm not prepared to mess around with that particular issue.

Your problem 2:
I can see your reasoning on this, and I partially agree. However, I can convince myself into accepting that the Marauders have a divine boon from Slaanesh, and DE Warriors without a Mark of Slaanesh are not, and hence they are more prone to the effects of fear and the like. Arguably I might even find it fitting in some sense, since the Marauders arguably are a "barbarian" people that live to fight (to an extend), and to whom death might not seem as terrible as it could do to a self-centered and egotistical Druchii Warrior; seasoned professional or not.

You problem 1:
Conceded. I did not consider that angle when I made my proposition. Your solution of simply increasing the cost of both units by +1 pt./model is acceptable to me though. Arguably it simply brings the cost of the two units back to the costs they had in the 6th ed. While I like to have cheap troops, I can live with the 5 and 7 pts. cost in this situation. If we were to look for a fluff justification, I suppose that we could argue that the members of the Cult is more limited than the "regular" variant of those types of units, and thus they cost a bit more than they do in the vanilla DE and WoC army books.

The option of eliminating the option of identical armaments:
It's an option, but we are still left with the problem of eliminating the Hand Weapon option. If we were to pursue this avenue, then I believe that we would have to remove the option for either the LA or the Shield from the Marauders. But frankly I'm not too keen on that option.

Conclusion:
Basically I'm most in favor of the pts. increase for both units, combined with the free MoS for the Marauders. It's a minor change, it's relatively simple, it does balance the units a bit more, we can justify the Mark on the Marauders, and it can be defended from a fluff PoV (both the Mark and pts. increase).
This option leaves the DE Warriors as I believe we discussed earlier, with base LA & HW at base 7 pts./model, and with the options of Shield, Spear, RXB, & RXH.
The Marauders then end up with a default HW and MoS at a base cost of 5 pts./model, and with the options for LA, Shield, Flail, Great Weapon.
Both units, of course, still have access to their Command Groups, and the DE Warriors will have access to their <25 pts. Standard.

I say let's leave it at this, and move on. It's a workable solution, and if need be, we can return to the issue again when we get to playtesting.


/Kyrel

[Weenth]

Your option C:
Arguably this takes us back towards the standard DE Spearman that we moved away from. OK, that's an option. It's not solving our problem though, since every single unit (monsters and similar excluded) in the game comes default with a Hand Weapon. I may be mistaken in my memory, but I believe that it's in the core rules of the game. To be honest I'm not prepared to mess around with that particular issue.

Yes, every unit is considered to have HW in addition to any equipment listed, I agree we shouldn't change that.


Even so, I believe obligatory spear (which can be exchanged for RHB or RHB) does solve the balance problem. That's because we have option of:

A)Using regular Spearmen, for those who think it fits their fighting style.

For those who want CC Warriors unit, but dislike spears, there's always the choice of:

B) not using spears despite of Warriors having them. It's also that way in the regular DE list - I've seen plenty people here on the forum saying that they often use HW+Shield (rather than Spear+Shield) for better save on their Spearmen.

C) exchanging spears for RHB, which gives Swordsmen unit capable of effective stand&shoot reaction (or shooting at near targets they don't want to charge).


So, C option gives more efficient unit than simply HW+S+LA and adequately pricier. B option gives cheaper unit, but probably not as cost-efficient as others builds; now, if someone's happy with that and still wants to take B, no problem. If someone dislikes that, then the answer is simply not to use that option. The bottom line is that when someone preferes not to use the equipment given (and therefore included in unit's price), it's their choice, but as it is not a 'regular' option it doesn't need to be as cost-effective as others.

I know this way we kinda don't include 'simple DE Swordsman' option, but as mentioned before, inclusion of additional equipment variants is less important that keeping all regular choices and their options viable. Also, we still get 'RHB Swordsman' option to represent more 'streetfighting cultist' equipment.



This also brings me to another point I missed earlier; that is:

If Spears will be +1 pt upgrade option on Swordsmen I believe they won't be a viable option.

Even with 'free'(=obligatory) spears there are many who prefere not to use them. If players would have to pay 1 more point for them, then we probably won't see any Spearmen at all in CoS armies. The exception may be those who play by WYSIWYG and have spear-armed models and decide to use them despite of it being a poor choice.

Seeing that we can't remove Spear option altogether (as probably nearly every Warrior model in existing CoS armies has one) we must make sure it's viable (even though, as I've gathered, none of us has any particular sentiment for using Spearmen ).

Your problem 2:
I can see your reasoning on this, and I partially agree. However, I can convince myself into accepting that the Marauders have a divine boon from Slaanesh, and DE Warriors without a Mark of Slaanesh are not, and hence they are more prone to the effects of fear and the like. Arguably I might even find it fitting in some sense, since the Marauders arguably are a "barbarian" people that live to fight (to an extend), and to whom death might not seem as terrible as it could do to a self-centered and egotistical Druchii Warrior; seasoned professional or not.

Well, background-wise the 'live to fight' is represented by Will of Chaos rule. So in terms of fluff, it's not a question of: 'why don't they panic?' (the answer is: they're marked by Slaanesh), rather of: 'why does every single marauder in CoS army bear the Mark?'

It's not as if every Slaanesh follower is marked, it's for the chosen/more advanced ones. So this would mean that Morathi took only best warriors of Hung Marauders, something which I don't see background reason for (why take only better warriors when you can have both them and not so good ones, and you're ready to sacrifice both anyway?) and 'feel-wise' (or whatever the term would be ) it gives Marauders the elite feel, which DE Warriors don't get (both marked and unmarked go into the army), and IMO it should be clear that more elite are the elves.

The option of eliminating the option of identical armaments:
It's an option, but we are still left with the problem of eliminating the Hand Weapon option. If we were to pursue this avenue, then I believe that we would have to remove the option for either the LA or the Shield from the Marauders. But frankly I'm not too keen on that option.

Me too, as it would mean removing options which are on the models. So, if going by the way of eliminating identical armaments, I'd focus on Warriors, as given above.

I say let's leave it at this, and move on. It's a workable solution, and if need be, we can return to the issue again when we get to playtesting.

Well, IMO it's not workable, as I think it doesn't make Spearmen a viable choice and that is something we need to do, whereas introducing Swordsmen is (only) something that'd be good to do.

[Kyrel]

Weenth, I'm tired at the moment, so this might come off sounding more "gruff" than I intend it. No offense intended, but GODS I'm getting sick of this Warrior/Marauder debate!

I'll say this again. I don't think that we can come up with a workable compromise that satisfies both of our goals. To be honest with you, I'm running out of ideas as to what might or might not work, and frankly I'm getting to the point where I'm tempted to say "To Hell with it! Leave the damned units unchanged from the basic army books!"

I thought that we'd already agreed on the look of the DE Warriors. You are apparently now reopening that issue and more or less bringing us back to square one on the Warriors again, if you want to re-add the Spear as basic equipment.

As for the fluff issue you have with all Marauders automatically having MoS, I can partially follow you, but to be honest, IMO this is really just a question of perception, and think of the Marauders in the way that they have all converted to Slaanesh worship after Morathi showed up and proclaimed herself an emissary/avatar of Slaanesh, thereby proving the God's special interest in the clan(s), and you can get your fluff explanation for the sudden Mark, since everyone ultimately converted to the God that had decided to favor them. Also, don't you see some justification in having Chaos Marauders in a Slaanesh worshiping Cult army be followers of Slaanesh, and hence bearing the mark of said god? Especially if it serves as a rules means of addressing a balance issue.

You know, we probably need to consider what we consider most important. Rules or fluff. I think that we agree that the fluff and rules should reflect each other as much as possible, but personally I have to say that unless it's a major issue, the fluff needs to be secondary to the rules, since the fluff doesn't affect the battlefield performance and actual tabletop balance of the different units.

Ok. It's 2am, and I don't really have the energy to continue this debate further at this point. So let me see if I have understood you correct when I say you suggest:

DE Warriors - 7 pts./model
HW, Spear, LA as basic equipment
Options for Shield, RXB, RHB, MoS, & Command Group

Marauders - 4 pts./model
HW
Option for LA, Shield, GW, Flail, MoS, & Command Group

If that is correct, then as a player I no longer see any reason for taking DE Warriors at all, regardless of their battlefield role. You can argue that they could be there as missile support, but personally I'd rather have Shades and Dark Riders in that role.


MartialArtist! Since it seems that Weenth and I are on our way back towards square one on this issue, would you care to give your opinion on this issue. Just disregard the discussion Weenth and I have had on the matter so far. I'd really appreciate some fresh opinions on this issue, because I think that Weenth and I are heading towards a stalemate in this matter (if nothing else, I'm running out of arguments and energy).


Sleep well people

Kyrel...zzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZ

[Kheel]

I would like to know the stats of the Anointed, is it like a chaos lord?

I much apreciate all the work and thought you guys put into this!

LONG LIVE THE CULT!!!!

[Weenth]

@Kheel - Basicaly we want to leave Anointed stats as in 6th ed CoS, maybe changing his Toughness to 3 (he had T4). If you don't have access to 6th ed. CoS list, PM me.

Anyway, he'll probably undergo some other changes when we get to him (as you can see in the first post, we decided to discuss units on one-by-one basis and as Anointed is quite far in the queue). The discussion we've had so far on him can be found in this topic, IIRC stats are also given somewhere there.

_________________________________________________

@Kyrel
I understand well that you're tired of Warriors/Marauders debate, TBH so am I. I hope either fresh ideas from other persons (MA, looking at you ) could help, I'm still ready to give it more though. Anyway, though I'd rather finish it now not to have to go back to it later, we can always put Warriors to the side for a while and simply move onto next entry without decision on this one.

I thought that we'd already agreed on the look of the DE Warriors. You are apparently now reopening that issue and more or less bringing us back to square one on the Warriors again, if you want to re-add the Spear as basic equipment.

Well, not as much re-add Spears per se, my concern is rather making Spearmen useful. The ideas I've come up with so far in this regard are (given in last post):
- give Swordsmen option obligatory RHB, so its loose-some-gain-some change rather than simple more-less.
- make no other Swordsman option than that, except for the built-in (by rules) option of not using other equipment unit has)

and (not given earlier):
- making Spears a free, 0 pt upgrade on Swordsmen, which feels... odd.

Any other ideas? Dunno, mayby I'm wrong and there will be considerable amount of players willing to pay +1 for Spears. What do you think? Maybe we could do a poll in DD on that one:

Do you use spears on your warriors, or rather HW+Shield, despite of them having spears? If spears were +1 pt option on Warriors, who'd come with only hand weapon and LA basic (option of shield as usual), would you use them?:

a) I always/mostly use HW+Shield on Warriors, so I wouldn't buy spears as upgrade.
b) I always/mostly use Spears on Warriors, but would rather use HW+Shiled if I had to buy Spears.
c) I always/mostly use Spears on Warriors and would buy the Spears as upgrade.
d) I prefere other Core units, so I don't use Warriors at all.

As for the fluff issue you have with all Marauders automatically having MoS, I can partially follow you, but to be honest, IMO this is really just a question of perception, and think of the Marauders in the way that they have all converted to Slaanesh worship after Morathi showed up and proclaimed herself an emissary/avatar of Slaanesh, thereby proving the God's special interest in the clan(s), and you can get your fluff explanation for the sudden Mark, since everyone ultimately converted to the God that had decided to favor them. Also, don't you see some justification in having Chaos Marauders in a Slaanesh worshiping Cult army be followers of Slaanesh, and hence bearing the mark of said god? Especially if it serves as a rules means of addressing a balance issue.

Agreed, I'd expect all Marauders in CoS army to be followers of Slaanesh. However, follower=/=marked; being marked is something more, a sign that not only one devotes him/herself to god, but that also that the deity in question notices and rewards that.

Saying that by going under Morathi's command all the tribe members have suddenly been marked feels far strechted to me - it's just too straight, ordered and functional action, considering what Slaanesh (and Chaos in general) is and how it works. Having said that, if we come up with solution that is good in other aspects (that is, rules and balance), I think I could go with this one. Hmm... maybe something along the lines of: As Morathi gains power by offering souls to Slaanesh she made sure all marauders following her will belong to him after death; some fluff of rituals she and her Sorceresses performed, etc.? Could be a way to go.


Anyway, this leaves us with the problem of Spears being a viable choice, so I think we should start by solving that.

One more though - how about another poll? We could see how other players, at least here on druchii.net percieve variants we're speaking of. For example:

Given option of taking as mainstay core unit:

A) DE Warriors - 8 pts/model
M5|WS4|BS4|S3|T3|W1|I5|A1|Ld8
HW, Spear, Shield, LA
Command Group Cost: ( 6/ 3/ 6 )
Special rules: Mark of Slaanesh*, Eternal Hatred
Option of 25 pt Magic Banner

B) DE Warriors - 9 pts/model
M5|WS4|BS4|S3|T3|W1|I5|A1|Ld8
HW, RHB, Shield, LA
Command Group Cost: ( 6/ 3/ 6 )
Special rules: Mark of Slaanesh*, Eternal Hatred
Option of 25 pt Magic Banner

C) Marauders - 6 pts/model
M4|WS4|BS3|S3|T3|W1|I4|A1|Ld7
HW, Shield, LA
Command Group Cost: ( 8/ 4/ 8 )
Special rules: Mark of Slaanesh*, Mere Mortals**
No option of Magic Banner

*immune to panic, fear & terror; can flee as charge reaction; add +10 pts to total unit value.
**when broken/fleeing unit doesn't cause panic in Dark Elf units

you would use:

- each of them sometimes, depending on context
- A or B sometimes, never C
- A or C sometimes, never B
- B or C sometimes, never A
- only A, never other two
- only B, never other two
- only C, never other two

I have to go, so I don't have time to make actual polls in DD right now; can do that later today.

[Kyrel]

The polling idea sounds good. We could really use some more input from people.


/Kyrel

[Weenth]

Ok, the polls are on and I must say I'm happy with the effect - not only do we get feedback on the given issues, but it also looks like they're helping generating intrest in our project.

Anyway, we have 12 votes in poll #1 and 11 votes in poll #2 so far; that gives some range of opinions, though I still hope we'll get more. I haven't set time limit in polls, so we need to decide when they're closed. I think stopping each of them after 24 hours of no activity (neither new votes nor comments) would be ok?

[Martialartist]

On the whole Warrior's/Marauders thing, I gave up a while ago and was just waiting for you two to sort out something. However, in the first poll I voted for the fact that I do get a bit of use out of the spears and so would probably upgrade (coming from my limited in-game experience). Those extra rolls just seem to work for me....

In the second poll I voted A or C but not B, which seems the prevailing thought.

I'll be away for about the next week and won't be posting, but will look forward to returning to hopefully some good feedback and at least a mutual agreement on the basic infantry!

MA

[Weenth]

We still have some activity in the poll threads, but as the general outcome of each poll didn't change over last two days, I think we can take conclusions now and be done with Warriors.

Edit: No activity since Sunday, so it looks like we have final results - see the end of this post
____________________________

I. Poll 1 outcome:
31 votes, 2 of these come from people not using Warriors. We also have one person who commented that no given poll option fits him (usualy uses HW, but would buy spears 'just in case'). so I'll leave first two out, and add 1 person to the total of those willing to pay for upgrade.
This gives us total of 30 votes.

Out of these:
- 23 (about 77%) wouldn't buy spears as +1 pt upgrade
- 7 (about 23%) would buy spears

So, the number of those willing to pay is considerably smaller and equal to number of those not willing to use spears even for free (7 such persons)

Conclusion: Spears as +1 upgrade are not a viable option

As said, I think a 0 pt upgrade is kinda odd, and anyway obligatory spears allow for exactly same thing (one can simply use models without them and not use them rule-wise). So unless we can find some new solution, obligatory spears are the way.


_______________________________________

II. Poll 2 outcome:
Each of them sometimes, depending on the context. [ 4 ]
A or B sometimes; never C. [ 2 ]
A or C sometimes; never B. [ 7 ]
B or C sometimes; never A. [ 2 ]
Only A; never the other two. [ 1 ]
Only B; never the other two. [ 3 ]
Only C; never the other two. [ 1 ]

We have total of 20 varied opinions. For ease of interpretation, I recoded the outcome in the following way:
- each unit (A, B or C) has its number of 'balanced' opinions and 'unbalanced/overpriced' opinions (so voting for 'use only C' gives one 'Balanced' vote for C and one 'Unbalanced' vote for A and B each).
- the ideal situation would be no 'unbalanced' votes, but as this is probably impossible, I'd say the aim is to have:
a) considerably more 'Balanced' than 'Unbalanced' votes on each unit and
b) about same number of each type of voices on every entry.

The recoded outcome is (just to remind: A - DE Spearmen, B - DE Swordsmen with RHB, C - Marauder Swordsmen; total on each unit is 20 votes):

A - balanced: 14 votes (70%)
A - unbalanced: 6 votes (30%)

B - balanced: 13 votes* (65%)
B - unbalanced: 7 votes* (35%)

C - balanced: 14 votes (70%)
C - unbalanced: 6 votes (30%)

*two persons commented that they don't like the RHB option, but beacuse 'this is a corsair thing' and doubts if 'halfway' between spearmen/sworsmen and crossbowmen is needed. As I understand they otherwise consider B option to be balanced, so I included that in calculations. Without it votes on B would be:

B - balanced - 11 votes (55%)
B - unbalanced - 9 votes (45%)


So, as for Warriors vs Marauder issue, the answer is clear - both got the same proportion and number of votes, and both got over twice as many 'Balanced' votes as 'Unbalanced' ones.

Conclusion: at given points and equipment, both DE Warriors and Marauders are viable choices.


Now, the RHB option is more controversial. Though it got nearly twice as many 'Balanced' votes as 'Unbalanced' ones, this changes to 'just a bit more' 'Balanced' if I'm wrong and those giving reasons of 'it's for corsairs' have also other reasons to vote for 'unbalanced'.

Also, the fact that this entry got both the most 'only this unit' and also most 'never this unit' votes shows opinions on RHBs is divided. I suspect this comes from the two facts:
a) it's a new unit, so no actual experiences with it
b) the only RHB unit so far (RHB-armed Corsairs) is a rather poor choice

Anyway, the solutions we have:
Solution I - leave them as they are ('may replace spears with RHBs for +1 pt) - I think it's a matter of working out how to effectively use this unit; as Dark Alliance for example commented, with AP banner they'd be really good.

Solution II - make this option cheaper ('may replace spears with RHBs for free) - I think that in such case it'd be clearly more attractive option than spearmen; maybe I'm mistaken though.

Solution III - as Uman suggested, make separate unit (cultists/thugs), with skirmish rule, HW&shield basic and option of RHB.

Good sides of such solution:
- we introduce HW+shield combo without making spearmen a poor choice
- we have a core skirmisher unit to replace the 6th ed list Shades

Bad sides of such solution:
- another entry in our crowded list
- gives unclear effect fluff-wise: we have marked by Slaanesh DE Warriors option, but at the same time there's separate cultists unit.

Now, I think that we sufficently fix the lack of core Shades with Furies and Marauder Horsmen and (as I've already mentioned a couple of times ) I think we should keep entries amount close to offcial ABs, so I don't like this solution. I may be biased though with the fact that I'd like to finally get over Warriors entry and move on, while this solution requires additional work.


Conclusion: RHBs are not as clear as other options; I'd say leave them as they're given in poll; I'd rather not make separate entry for them, but if you believe making them 1 pt cheaper would be more balanced, I could go with that, at least for now. No matter which solution we choose, seeing that they were a bit controversial in poll, I think we need to pay attention to them during playtesting.


_________________________

III. Comments on Marauders

During the poll the also got quite a few comments on Marauders. I know we're concentrating on DE units now, but considering that we've discussed Marauders a lot in this context, I think it would be easy to finalize that entry 'out of queue'.

Anyway, the comments were on two issues:

1. S5 attacks option, especially flails
- it's been noted that option of flails is very attractive on Marauders; I believe it's so especially because - unlike WoC - CoS army has little in the way of high Strength attacks.

2. Mere Mortals rule:
a) little impact on the game, as most units will be immune to panic anyway -> therefore redundant
b) gives less inclination for puting MoS on Warriors (considered a bad thing fluff-wise by the poster)
c) Makes Marauders even better than they are (considered a bad thing, as they're good already).

Now, my opinion on the above:
- c) is true, however combined with a) it means it's just a little problem
- I agree on b), however I see it as a good thing - elves are more resistant to Chaos and less inclined to fully devote their souls, thus fluff-wise having only few marked among 'basic cultists' is IMO a good thing. This background issue was already discussed, and if I recall well, we have similiar POV on this one.

So, my proposition: Leave 'Mere Mortals' rule, it's fluffy and - as poll showed - doesn't unbalance Marauders, at least in the Swordsmen version. Now, the Flail wielding Marauders may become too obvious choice in the list, so I'd make Flails cost +2 pts per model. I think we can leave Great Weapon cost at +1 pt - S5 is not so much of use if your always striking last with your unit of large(infantry)-based, T3 1W models with no armour, or 6+ AS at best.


_______________________________________

Ok, so taking all this into consideration, my proposion for Warriors and Marauders entries:

DE Warriors - 7 pts
stats as pr. in the 7th ed DE Army Book

Equipment: HW, Spear, LA

Special Rules: Eternal Hatred

Options:
May have Mark of Slaanesh - 10 pts
SB may carry a Magic Banner up to 25 pts

Command:
Lordling - 6 pts
Musican - 3 pts
SB - 6 pts

Weapons (one choice only):
May replace Spears with Repeater Handbows - 1 pts
May replace Spears with Repeater Crossbows - 4 pts

Armour:
Shield - 1 pts


Marauders - 4 pts
stats as pr. in the 7th ed WoC Army Book

Equipment: HW

Special Rules: Mere Mortals, Will of Chaos

Options:
May have Mark of Slaanesh - 10 pts

Command:
Champion - 8 pts
Musican - 4 pts
SB - 8 pts

Weapons (one choice only) :
Flails - 2 pts
Great Weapons - 1 pt

Armour:
Light Armour - 1 pt
Shield - 1 pt

___________________________________
___________________________________
Update: We've got some more votes in both polls now, IMO current result make my previous conclusions still valid, maybe except for the fact that now RHB option at +1 price no longer looks controversial; anyway, for the record, current results are:

I. Poll 1 outcome:
34 votes:
- 8 usually don't use even 'free' (obligatory) spears, so wouldn't buy them
- 16 use obligatory spears, but wouldn't buy them
- 7 use spears and would buy them
- 3 don't use Warriors at all

- 1 comment (count as additional vote): 'usually I use HW+Shield, but would buy spears anyway'.

Recalculated, this gives us total of 32 votes on the issue. Out of these:
- 24 (75%) wouldn't buy spears as +1 pt upgrade
- 8 (25%) would buy spears

II. Poll 2 outcome:
Each of them sometimes, depending on the context. [ 5 ]
A or B sometimes; never C. [ 3 ]
A or C sometimes; never B. [ 7 ]
B or C sometimes; never A. [ 2 ]
Only A; never the other two. [ 1 ]
Only B; never the other two. [ 3 ]
Only C; never the other two. [ 1 ]

Total of 23 votes. The recoded outcome is:

A - balanced: 17 votes (74%)
A - unbalanced: 6 votes (26%)

B - balanced: 16/14 votes* (70/61%)
B - unbalanced: 7/9 votes* (30/39%)

C - balanced: 15 votes (65%)
C - unbalanced: 8 votes (35%)

[Kyrel]

Weenth,

I don't have the time right now to go through your findings with a fine toothed comb, so for the moment I'll just proceed on the assumption that your analysis is correct (or at least close enough).

I'm still not certain that I agree with 4 and 7 pts. for the Marauders and Warriors respectively, but if the majority of people seem to be fine with these two entries, then I suggest that we call them done and move on.

To get an evaluation of the two units as you suggest them above, I've put up a poll (on the DD forum) and asked people to comment on the balance between the two units, when the units are kitted out for mainline combat duty.

If the majority of voters in that poll says "Yes, the units are balanced against each other", then we move on (at last )


/Kyrel

[Weenth]

Hmm.. I don't suspect people would be willing to pay more than 2 pts for flails, and other than flaila option, with the result of the previous poll (#2), I'd say it's easy to predict outcome of this one; but if you believe its needed, I think we can wait for a couple more days with finalising these two entries.

Can you put the actual stats and Mere Mortals rule description in the poll? And description of MoS rules too (Eternal Hatred rules I think everybody on this site is familiar with ). I know most people voting probably took part in previous polls, but for ease of reference I think they should be copied into this one's text too.


BTW, as for results, Majority of 'None is an obvious choice' would be of course most desired result, though I think that even if it's not a majority, but we get similiar number of 'Warriors are the obvious choice' and 'Marauders are the obvious choice' then it'll be ok. So I propose recoding results like in the last poll. So:

[Yes. Neither unit is an obvious choice as a mainline fighting unit.]
counts as 'Good choice' vote for both units

[No. The DE Warriors are obviously the better option for mainline fighting.]
counts as 'Good choice' vote for DE Warriors and 'Poor choice' for Marauders

[No. The Marauders are obviously the better option for mainline fighting.]
counts as 'Good choice' vote for Marauders and 'Poor choice' for DE Warriors

and the desired result is no difference or relatively small difference in 'Good choice' votes between the unit.

[Kyrel]

Well, I already put up the poll before adding the description of the Mere Mortal and MoS rules, and as you say, I don't really believe that it's necessary. At any rate, 9 votes in so far. 5 says we've hit the balance we aimed for, 2 says the Warriors are the obvious choice, and 2 says the Marauders are the obvious choice. Arguably the "majority" of voters so far believe that we have the right balance, but then again, the majority is only slightly over 50%. Anyway, we'll let the poll run for a couple of days more, and then we'll call it.

/Kyrel

[Weenth]

Well, I already put up the poll before adding the description of the Mere Mortal and MoS rules, and as you say, I don't really believe that it's necessary.

I rather said I wasn't sure it's necessary - many voters don't need it, though some may; anyway, seeing how this issue poped up in comments, such description indeed is needed, so I've added it.

BTW one of the comments made me realise the GW should be 2 pts as well, so Marauder entry would look like this:

Marauders - 4 pts
stats as pr. in the 7th ed WoC Army Book

Equipment: HW

Special Rules: Mere Mortals, Will of Chaos

Options:
May have Mark of Slaanesh - 10 pts

Command:
Champion - 8 pts
Musican - 4 pts
SB - 8 pts

Weapons (one choice only) :
Flails - 2 pts
Great Weapons - 2 pt

Armour:
Light Armour - 1 pt
Shield - 1 pt

[Weenth]

Ok, no activity over last 24 h in the poll and just one vote in last 48 h, I think we can consider this one closed. The results are:

14 Votes
Yes. Neither unit is an obvious choice as a mainline fighting unit. [ 8 ] - 57%
No. The DE Warriors are obviously the better option for mainline fighting. [ 2 ] - 14%
No. The Marauders are obviously the better option for mainline fighting. [ 4 ] - 28%


Re-calculated results (total of 14 for each unit):

Warriors - worth it: 10
Warriors - not worth it: 4

Marauders - worth it: 12
Marauders - not worth it: 2

So: majority thinks both units are balanced; also, both units get comparable results (2 votes of difference). So, this one's finished and let's move on. The next unit are:



_________________________

DEVOTED
Waiting for results of Warriors/Marauders polls I made some comparisons between Devoted (6th ed stats&rules + EH) and other multi-attack CC units (Witch Elves, Corsairs, Daemonettes). In all cases Devoted came out as definitly better for their price. So they need either price rise or stats lowering. With first option I think they'd be too good for a core unit, so I opt for the latter and my proposition is:

keep Devoted price at 12 pts, make them 1 A basic (2 with AHW)

Also, as already mentioned, I don't like the idea of obligatory units, both for the problems it causes in small games and arbitraty nature of such ruling. So instead of 'obligatory 1+' from 6th ed, my proposition is:

Daemonic units can only be taken if the list includes at least one unit of Devoted

Such solution is fluffy (inner circle cultists are needed for summoning rituals), yet simple.


So , the entry would look like this:

CORE - Devoted

Daemonic units can only be taken if the list includes at least one unit of Devoted.

Devoted - 12 pts
M5/WS5/BS4/S3/T3/W1/I6/A1/Ld8

Unit size: 10+
Equipment: Two hand weapons.
Special Rules: Mark of Slaanesh, Eternal Hatred, Narcotic Fumes*

Options:
Champion^ may be blessed with Quickening Blood** (+10 pts)
Standard Bearer may carry a Magic Banner up to 50 pts

Command:
Champion^ - 12 pts
Musican - 6 pts
SB - 12 pts


*Narcotic Fumes - Any models in base contact with one or more models with Narcotic Fumes halve their WS and I (rounding up).

**Quickening Blood - ASF

^We need to finally decide on the Champion's title. See later part of this post.


I believe such version is balanced, I'll give here only comparison to Daemonettes, as it's the most important one (as both are in the same list, so compete for choice).

For record, Daemonettes as found in DoC are:

Daemonettes - 12 pts
M6/WS4/BS4/S3/T3/W1/I5/A2/Ld7

Unit size: 10+
Equipment: Claws (Hand Weapon).
Special Rules: Daemonic, Armour Piercing

Options:
Standard Bearer may have one of two Daemonic Icons (+25 pts):
- Banner of Ecstasy
- Siren Standard

Command:
Alluress - 12 pts
Musican - 6 pts
SB - 12 pts


Now, as each unit has its better and worse sides, for clarity I divided comparison into five parts:
- Psychology & Morale
- Mobility
- Offensive capability
- Defensive capability
- Upgrade potential



1. Psychology and Morale:
Both:
are immune to fear, terror and panic

Devoted:
can flee as charge reaction
+1 Ld

Daemonettes:
cannot flee
instability test instead of break test (so loose models instead of flee if failed)

I'd say they're about equal in this aspect, maybe with a small advantage on Devoted's side.



2. Mobility
Daemonettes:
+1 M

Clear advantage of Daemonettes.



3. Offensive Capability
Both have:
Same effective no of Attacks, same S

Devoted:
+1 WS & Narcotic fumes - meaning they almost always hit on 3+
Eternal Hatred - re-roll to hit rolls

Daemonettes:
Armour piercing - so -1 to AS
attacks count as magical

Daemonettes advantages are more situational, and even against such specific targets (like Dryads and Treekin, whose Ward save doesn't work against magical attacks) Devoted get comparable result (Devoted are a bit better against Dryads, while Daemonettes are a bit better against Treekin, though in latter case both units make about 0,1 wound per model (2 Attacks).

So Big advantage for Devoted.



4. Defensive Capability
I'll divide it here into two kinds:
'passive defence' - works always, Ward save for example.
'active defence' - works on "you get to kill them before they have the chance to kill you" basis.

Devoted:
+1 I & NF (halving I) - means they'll almost always strike first if noone charged (active defence)
NF (halving WS) - gives them effectively -1 to being hit by WS 4 or less opponents (passive defence).


Daemonettes:
5+ Ward save - passive defence against shooting, magic and in CC


In CC:
- if charged, they get usually get same survival rate (if opponent is WS5 or more, then the Daemonettes have a bit better rate), no matter what S of attacker
- if charging the Devoted are in a bit better situation due to better offensive capability
- in later turns Devoted are usually in a better situation - both due to offensive capability & bigger chance of striking first

Against Shooting & Magic:
- only Daemonettes get protection

So, relative defensive capability differs on area. In CC against WS4- Troops Devoted are clearly better, against more elite both are comparable in first turn, with Devoted on top in later turns. Outside CC Daemonettes have clearly better protection.

So I'd say Daemonettes are better in this respect, though it's not very big advantage.



5. Upgrade Potential
a) ASF - both unit's weak spot is getting charged as they have little protection; they can benefit from 'active defense in CC by ASF means

Devoted:
- can have ASF on champion - cheap option, though only 1 model (=3 Attacks) gains ASF

Daemonettes:
- can be joined by herald to gain ASF - pricy option and requires additional daemonic unit choice; still, it gives ASF to whole unit

b) equipment upgrades - no weapons option in any of these two units; only CG & Magic Standard/Daemonic Icon

Devoted:
Magic Banner up to 50 pts

Daemonettes:
Daemonic icon for 25 pts

I'd say the ASF options about equal out each other and Devoted are clearly better in Banner upgrade respect.


So, to sum up:
1. Psychology and Morale - about equal
2. Mobility - Daemonettes clearly better
3. Offensive capability - Devoted clearly better
4. Defensive capability - Daemonettes a bit better (clearly better on range, same or worse than Devoted in CC)
5. Upgrade potential - Devoted better


This IMO means in given version they're both attractive choices. The Devoted are clearly better in doing damage in CC but are very fragile on the range, while Daemonettes are easier to use and can get to the enemy faster (protection on range and +1 M).



_________________________________________________

DEVOTED HERO UPGRADE & DEVOTED CHAMPION TITLE

So far we have following ideas suitable for both Hero upgrade & devoted champion (as Devoted can be of both sexes, I've marked sex-dependant names in blue, I also marked blue the ones I think have wrong meaning - MA, as native speaker, can you comment on that?):


Chosen of Slaanesh
Slaaneshi Gifted
Favoured of Slaanesh
Zealot
Slaanesh Embodied
Flesh Champion
Sensual Champion
Dedicated One
Exalted Disciple
Debauchee
Sublime Disciple
Depraved One
Exuberant
Exuberant One
Blessed One
Pleasure Reverent
Slaanesh Reverent
Delighter - is this one sex-neutral?

Favoured One - wrong meaning?
Uxorious - wrong meaning?
Master Of Seduction - sex-dependant


and following ideas suitable for upgrade only (given as: [Upgrade name/??)


Devoted/??
Dark Prince's Glory/??
Exalted Dedication/??

Devoted High Mistress/?? - sex-dependant


My proposition is: let's each of us choose 4-5 titles from the above (starting from favourite and going down in order), so we can widen the choice. If you choose from names suitable for upgrade only, give also the proposition of champion's title fitting with the former (as: [Upgrade Name/Champions title].

My types are:
1. Pleasure Reverent
2. Slaanesh Reverent
3. Delighter
4. Depraved One
5. [Exalted Debauchee/Debauchee]

[Kyrel]

Warriors and Marauders hereby closed. Agreed.

I don't have time for a long reply to your post about the Devoted right now, but for starters I'll say this:

Personally I'd prefer to keep the Devoted entirely unchanged from 6th ed. That will require an explanation for why the Devoted should not have Eternal Hatred, but I'm sure that we can come up with some sort of suitable explanation. If nothing else I'd say that the Eternal Hatred rule will make the Devoted too dangerous with the 6th ed. stats. At least for 12 pts./model. But again, my preference is to keep them unchanged in rules and stats. I agree that the Devoted kicked ass in 6th ed. though, and perhaps they were even a little too good for their points. Unlike you, however, my preferred solution to that problem would be to jack up their price to 13 pts./model, and then change nothing else.

We can argue that the Devoted in 6th ed. were too good for a Core unit, but frankly I don't agree. Yes, they were dangerous in a fight, but not to a degree that I found it to be a problem, when you looked at things from an overall army POV. IMO their cost and lack of defense against ranged attacks balanced them out against the threat they posed in combat. Additionally they also suffered from the same challenges (as most other Elves), when faced with T4+ and heavily armoured opponents.

I do see what you mean with regards to the issue of the compulsory unit in low pts. value armies, but rather than make the models cheaper, I'd prefer to change the rule on the compulsory issue a bit. Two options that come to my mind immediately, are:

1) You must include 1 unit of Devoted per full 1000 pts. in the army. Meaning that you remove the compulsory unit for armies of 999 pts. and less.
2) You must include at least 5+ devoted in the army per 1000 pts. Thus you change the min. size of the unit, but require people to take more of them the larger the army is. In armies of 1000 pts. or less, you would thus only be required to field 5+ Devoted. 10+ in armies of 2000 pts. and so forth. My biggest concern with this solution is the potential for abuse, with regards to making multiple small units of 5-6 Devoted. Though this issue too could be solved by adding a specification that the 10+ min. unit size applies to units in armies that require the inclusion of 10+ Devoted.

Your suggestion about the need to include a Unit of Devoted, in order to field Daemonic unit(s), is not necessary IMO. As I recall, we've already limited the number of Daemonic units to the number of Sorceresses in the army, and if the Devoted remains a compulsory choice, then they will always be there anyway. Requiring one unit of Devoted per unit of Daemons is IMO overkill. Also, the way I see Devoted, they would not necessarily participate in a summoning ritual for a Daemonic host/unit.

Your comparison of the Devoted and Daemonettes seems more or less OK to me, though I'll admit that I don't have the time right now to make a closer analysis myself. Arguably a reduced Devoted unit and Daemonettes would be more or less equally good choices.
Thinking about my preference to keep the Devoted unchanged, and comparing them with the Daemonettes, then I agree that we might have to consider if that might end up making the Daemonettes an inferior choice. I don't have the time right now to make a detailed comparison, but off the top of my head, I'd argue that this issue can be handled fairly easily with a modification of the cost of the Devoted.

That's it for now. I'll be back as soon as possible...



/Kyrel

[Weenth]

Not much time on my part as well (got much work for studies this week, so I'll be busy till friday), so, I'll keep this short.


I. Devoted stats & rules

1. Eternal Hatred - Honestly I can't see any good explantation for Devoted not having EH if other Marked DE do. We possibly could come up with something, but I think it would be far-stretched in any case and also strange on the rules side (a race-wide rule that leaves only one unit out??).


2. Stats - this is more a question of balance; after looking through other ABs and some thinking my current ideas are:

From what I gathered in all current Armybooks there is only one as powerful (=costy) core CC unit - Chaos Warriors.
Now, on one hand ChW are a part of a CC-profiled army, with almost no shooting and they're M4 (it's easier to slow them down/avoid them); that balances them.
On the other hand, Devoted, even with 2 A basic and EH, would be about 14-15 pts. That's still cheaper than AHW armed ChW with MoS (Devoted are also more mobile, but balanced by the fact they're more fragile) and CoS is more CC-infantry oriented than 'vanilla' DE.

So:
- I firmly believe Devoted should have EH.
- I'd rather keep Devoted toned down (1 A basic => 2 with AHW)
- Ifwe have a reason to keep them powerful and rather make them more pricey (with 2 A and EH they should be priced in 14-15 pts range; don't have time to do more exact calculation ATM)
andwe make sure such powerful core unit doesn't break the balance
that's also an option to consider IMO.

So, a question:
Kyrel, What are your reasons behind keeping Devoted 2A basic? Is it preference only, or are there other reasons?



II. Devoted availability

Kyrel, please read more carefully - what I proposed was one unit of Devoted to include daemonic units, not one Devoted unit per daemonic unit.
So this would have similiar effect to 'obligatory 1+', but a bit less restrictive and reasoned by fluff.

As mentioned, I don't like idea of obligatory unit. Especially as it's an idea that isn't use by GW in any 7th ed AB and only two quite old 6th ed AB use it (one hero and one unit in Bretonnia and one unit in Ogre Kingdoms, ABs coming from 2003 and 2004 respectively). I'd say to keep in line we should avoid 1+ solution.

If we want unit's inclusion from fluff POV, then let's have a rule that shows it's about fluff (like only Sorceresses being able to lead the army), rather than arbitraty one.

Keeping in line with other ABs IMO means we should avoid '1+ solution'; anyway if we make balanced army list then from balance POV no obligatory units are needed.

In any case, I'd want our solution to keep close to other ABs in terms of 'selection rules type'.

'1 unit A per xx pts' has been used in previous editions (4th&5th at least), but AFAIK hasn't been used since then. I don't recall GW using 'xx models (no matter how divided) per yy points' at any moment, certainly they don't use it in current ABs.

From what I gathered, in official ABs units choice is/can be influenced in following ways (obviously many of these won't be useful with Devoted, but I think having a complete list can be also useful later on in our work):

- core/special/rare division and number of required/available slots (including '2 per slot' choices and/or choices taking multiple diferent slots)
- 'core but not counting towards core' rule
- only specific character can fulfill unique role (general; hierophant) rule
- 'you can't have more X than Y units' type rules
- 'you can only take X if you take Y' type rules
- 'X is special, but core if you include Y in your army' type rules
- flat limit ('0-1 can be taken in army') - though I'm not sure this one's used in 7th ed (TBH I can't find a single example of that ATM)

I belive this is complete list, but don't have time to make sure now; If I've forgoten something, please add it.


III. Upgrade/Champion name
MA & Kyrel - what are your types?

[Kyrel]

Devoted stats & rules:

Eternal Hatred: We can agree that it might be more logical for the Devoted to have the EH rule as well. However, as I see it, there is a balance issue with regards to EH and 2 Attack + AH + Narcotic Fumes, as this combo makes for a pretty damned dangerous unit, since the Devoted will nearly always hit an opponent on 3+ (if I'm not remembering my basic math wrong, then you ought to have something close to 8 of 9 attacks hitting due to the EH re-roll). I'm fairly certain that a 8/9 hit probability isn't entirely balanced, and thus the options IMO come down to:

1) Fewer base Attacks
2) No Eternal Hatred
3) Significantly higher cost

Of these three options, my preferred version is to just loose the EH, since I believe that with a slight pts. increase, the 6th ed. Devoted would be pretty much balanced, and this fix would thus only force us to come up with some sort of explanation as to why the Devoted wouldn't have the EH rule.
Significantly increasing the cost could make the Devoted prohibitingly expensive (though I'm willing to debate this issue), and reducing their base Attacks reduces their potential max. damage output, which I don't see as necessary.

Rgd. your comment that we need to make sure that a 6th ed. Devoted version + EH at 14-15 pts./model isn't unbalanced is IMO a logical necessity. But it's not one that I consider to be a problem.

Devoted Availability:
Sorry. Guess that I missed the nuance in what you wrote. You were looking for a replacement rule for the obligatory unit rule.
To be honest, however, we just disagree on the issue of obligatory units. You dislike it, I have no problem with it. In this case I'd even say that I find it to be very much necessary, since if we remove this rule, you can effectively have a Cult army that consists of 1 Druchii General, and no other Dark Elves at all. Hardly what I would consider to be representative of an elven cult. (Yes, you can argue that during the End of Times, you could theoretically have such a force fighting on behalf of the Cult, but personally I'll say that such an army is a Chaos army, since it basically isn't reflecting the Elven connection in the army.)
I do realize that you don't like compulsory units. I'm guessing that this could be because you play a significant no. of smaller games (if I remember correctly). I tried to accommodate this issue by suggesting other variants of the rule, that would decrease the impact of the rule in smaller games, while retaining the rule in it's essence. I agree that my suggestions might be unorthodox, compared with normal GW rules in this area, but to be honest, I don't see that as any problem at all, as long as my suggestions would work in the manner intended.
As I see it, the goal of the compulsory Devoted unit in 6th ed. was to insure that the army would include at least some sort of Elven rank and file unit. I'd be just as happy to limit the number of Mortal (Marauders, Horsemen, Warriors) units to no more than the number of Elven units in the army (whereof at least one must have a MoS), but somehow I don't think that you will agree to this variant
Anyway, if you have any alternative suggestions that ensure that the Cult army MUST include some kind of Elf unit (with MoS), then I'm open to debate it. But I'm not willing to allow for an army combination that doesn't require the player to field some sort of Elven rank and file unit.

Upgrade/Champion name:
Frankly I'm not overly taken with any of the names you've listed. They just don't really appeal to me. I know that it might be against GW's present approach, but what is actually wrong with just calling the Unit Champion for a "Devoted Champion", and the Hero Upgrade for a "Devoted Upgrade"? It conveys the message, and I'd argue that for the moment it might even be close to being "original", since so few (any?) Champions are called Champions today.


Ok. I'm out of time for today as well. I'm a little tied up in the weekend, but I'll see if I can't find some time to log on again on Sunday.

/Kyrel

[Weenth]

DEVOTED STATS & RULES

Kyrel, as said before, I consider removing EH from Devoted a poor solution. It would require a far-stretched explanation fluff-wise and IMO feels 'wrong' rule-wise (as it makes a strange exception to race-wide rule).

So IMO from given options the ones to consider are:
1) Fewer base Attacks
3) Significantly higher cost

You gave your POV and reason for doubts on 3), still waiting for your opinion and reasons on 1).


As for me, I believe that, if executed right, both these options can be a way for balanced effect. My idea of specifics of 1st solution I've given before, below are my ideas on specifics of 3rd solution.

I've done the maths on Devoted offensive & defensive capability (with comparison to AHW Chaos Warriors). I've calculated both units (taking everything into consideration - no of A, S, T, armour, etc) in both situations (so total of 4 variants) against S3,S4,S5 and T3,T4,T5 with AS from none to 2+; don't have time nor energy to type all the numbers in here, but here's a short sum-up of general outcome:


In CC:

- In optimal situation 1 (T3, no AS opponents) for Devoted, they're as effective* in offence as ChW, against tough targets (like T5, 4+ AS) they're about half as effective
- In optimal situation 2 for Devoted (S5 or ignoring armour opponent), they're as effective in defence as ChW, in worst (S3 opponent) they're about half as effective
- Important thing is, these two situations will usuall be opposed

Other aspects:
- on range Devoted have definitly worse defense, especially against S3 shooting
- Devoted have +1M and +1I compared to ChW

*Devoted are more effective on offence in first turn of combat, so have two different effectivness values;
ChWarriors are more effective on offence against WS 4 or less opponets, so also have two values;
I compared lower value of Devoted to lower value of ChW and same with higher value.


AHW ChW with MoS are about 17 pts (16 pts+MoS cost); their cost is in context of a CC list that can do little about enemy shooting.

Taking all that together, I believe Devoted at 2 A basic, EH and 15 pts cost should be balanced (although, as usual with CoS-specific elements of the list, I think balance of Devoted is one of the things needing close attention during playtesting)

Now, I don't think Devoted at such cost are prohibitingly expensive (Wardancers, who are a bit more vulerable in CC and a little less vulnerable on distance cost 18 pts and are still often used). What I am more afraid of is advantage such powerful unit might give CoS in small-scale games (esp. if number of Special/Rare units is additonaly limited, like in Border Patrol scenarios).

Good solution to that would be IMO making them core/special, like Eternal Guard in WE list. So:

If army is led by a Supreme Sorceress, then Devoted are a Core unit. If your army is led by a Sorceress, then Devoted are a Special unit.

The effect of such solution would be:
big (3000+) games - no effect probably, as I'd expect SS to be fielded anyway in such force; if anything, it gives more inclination to fielding SS, which fluff-wise I consider a good thing for a big Cult force.

small (under 2000) games - no lord choice here, so Devoted will remain Special; so for example max 1 unit of them in Border Patrol games.

medium (2000-2999) games - player has to choose if he preferes core Devoted or fielding Anointed. As both were considerd very strong points of CoS list in 6th ed, I think it's acceptable effect.

IMO such solution also fits fluff-wise (Devoted are 'advanced' cultist, so are more likely to appear in large numbers in a force of high-ranked leader).


_________________________________


DEVOTED AVAILABILITY
I see the reason for inclusion of elven units, though, with given (fluff POV) reasoning, I'd say it could be any (marked) DE unit, not nessecairly Devoted. From 'game-play style' POV I'd say it should be an infantry unit, but that still leaves both Devoted and DE Warriors, maybe also Shades). Anyway, even with such widening I consider such idea more reasonable than obligatory inclusion of one, specific unit.

if we remove this rule, you can effectively have a Cult army that consists of 1 Druchii General, and no other Dark Elves at all. Hardly what I would consider to be representative of an elven cult. (Yes, you can argue that during the End of Times, you could theoretically have such a force fighting on behalf of the Cult, but personally I'll say that such an army is a Chaos army, since it basically isn't reflecting the Elven connection in the army.)

Hmm.. I'll say 'yes' to both. So:

- Yes, such army is not representative fluff-wise and as such should not be representative rule-wise

- Yes, such army has it's reason in fluff

As I understand IYO, 'not representative' means 'shouldn't be a possible build'. In my opinion 'representative' stands here for 'common/popular', so it's enough if such army is not as powerful as elf-including force (and thus not as attractive and rarely used or not used).

For example, Wood Elves army is, as its name itself suggests, about WE. It is still possible though to build entirely Tree Spirit force without any elves out of WE list. Such a force would be limited in its options and not as efficient as all-round list (at least against varied opponents).

Now, in case of CoS the difference is even more visible; if we go by 'marked DE unit required to use daemonic units' the elf-less army has:

- Obligatory T3 general with no armour, who has no unit to hide in
- No special choices
- just 2 core choices: relatively slow and poorly armoured CC infantry and quite capable (though nowhere as good as DR) fast cavalry
- limited amount of characters to bolster those units (only 1 Marauder Warlord in 2000 pts, 2 in 3000, etc).
- limited rare choices in form of Warriors & Knights*, which are the only units that can be bolstered by Anointed.

*we haven't finalised these entries yet, but AFAIR we all agree they should be limited somehow.

Now, I don't expect to see such CoS list often (if at all) and should someone take such list, I'm sure it'll be beacuse of fluff reasons. If he wanted efficient list, the WoC army has:
- cheaper flail/GW marauders
- core Chaos Warriors, special Chaos Knights
- multitude of other units and characters to choose from

So, I see no reason to forbid such army-build, it's appearence will be limited naturally (probably to 0 level) by it's low efficiency and narrow choice of units. If someone wants to take underdog Chaos army just for the 'elven twist' in it, I see nothing wrong with that; it's still obvious grand majority of CoS armies will contain elves.


________________________________________

UPGRADE/CHAMPION NAME

Frankly I'm not overly taken with any of the names you've listed. They just don't really appeal to me. I know that it might be against GW's present approach, but what is actually wrong with just calling the Unit Champion for a "Devoted Champion", and the Hero Upgrade for a "Devoted Upgrade"? It conveys the message, and I'd argue that for the moment it might even be close to being "original", since so few (any?) Champions are called Champions today.

After quick research:
- two upgrades in 6th ed (didn't see the new one yet) Lizardmen army are called 'Spawning Champion'
- one upgrade in VC (skeletons) and quite a few (5) in TK army are called simply 'champions'
- some of WoC upgrades are called simply 'champions' (namely: Warriors, Chosen, Dragon Ogres and Knights)

So, using 'champion' isn't neutral, but has it's fluff-feel - generally either 'undead construct with no individuality' or 'chaos champion' feel. Now, I'd say the latter means 'Devoted Champion' is a name to consider.

Can't say I'm fan of it though, as it has 'raw' cling to it. While it's suitable for 'general Chaos', the Slaaneshi feel seems to be more strange & sublime (hope that's the word) names (just look at spell names in both Slaanesh spell lists).

'Devoted upgrade' OTOH, not only sounds raw but is as raw as it gets, being a game-term rather than in-game title. I think especially adept Devoted should have her/his title in the setting and that should be used as the name of upgrade (both because it's more interesting/fluffy and beacuse that's the way it's done in other ABs).

[Kyrel]

OK. I'll trust in you number crunching and modify my position a little. Can we agree to:

- Devoted with 6th ed. statline at 15 pts./model.
- The compulsory inclusion of a unit of Devoted is changed into the compulsory inclusion of a unit of Dark Elves with a Mos.

On the issue of "chaos cult armies with an elven general", I'll simply say that this is probably one of the places where our approaches differ. I agree that a mortal/Daemon army with a DE General might not be quite as effective as a mixed army, and thus would be unlikely to be fielded. However, since I find that such an army composition doesn't reflect the core nature of the army, I'd prefer to make sure that it would not be possible to field it.
You bring up the Wood Elves as an example of an elven army that can be made so as to not include a single elf. Arguably such an army does not really represent a Wood Elf army, but I'll say two things about it:

1) The Tree Spirit force basically goes all the way and says clearly that it isn't a Wood Elf army. It's a Tree Spirit army, and it even includes the option of having the general and other heroes be Tree Spirits. This is not the case of with the Cult.
2) The Tree Spirit force still fits in well with the Athel Loren defenders theme that shows throughout the Wood Elf army book, and thus it still fits in fairly well with the overall theme in its own way. You can argue that the Daemons and Marauders also play into the theme of the Cult army, but I'll counter with the argument that the entire core of the fluff concerning the Cult, revolves around the Elves. The Marauders and Daemons also have their place, but these two elements have no real part in the formation and early evolution of the Cult. Slaanesh worship arguably, but I find it unlikely that actual outright unconcealed worship of Daemons was prevalent within the Cult until quite a while into it's evolution. And the Marauders, from a fluff POV, is essentially a recent add-on to the Cult.

If you'd want to make a comparison, try and think of a Vampire army consisting of a couple of Vampire characters, and the rest of the army consisting of Empire units. Is such an army a Vampire Count army? In a given time period, it is possible that Vlad Von Carstein could have put together such a force, consisting of Sylvanian living soldiers. But I'd say that it wouldn't carry much resemblance of any sort of undead force, and I wouldn't say that such an army would capture the essence of the Vampire Counts army.
Or what about a Chaos Warrior army with only a Chaos Lord for a General, and the remainder of the army consisting of Ogre units, both Chaos Ogres and Ogre units from the Ogre Kingdom army. It would be theoretically possible that a large Ogre force could be brought under the sway (or pay) of a Chaos Lord, and the Chaos Warrior army has access to Ogres. But would it represent the nature of the Chaos Warrior force as described in the army book? Personally I'd say no.
I know that the above examples are not possible from a rules POV, but I hope that you see my point.

As for the Upgrade/Champion name, then I guess that we'll disagree (again *LOL*). A "Champion" to me is a neutral term that denotes someone that stands out from the crowd by being superior to his fellows. The term is usually associated with warriors and competitions, but is also used in relation to someone that promotes a given cause. Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language supports this interpretation of the word. In my mind, a Devoted Champion is thus simply a follower of the Cult, who is somehow superior to other Devoted, either through a higher devotion to the cause, or through a superior martial ability. My vote thus goes to "Devoted Champion". Or alternatively the 6th ed. "Mistress".

As for the Master Upgrade, then I'd say that an upgrade title of "Devoted" would simply signify an association with the Devoted of the Cult, and his title would thus remain "Master". Personally I could envision a Master "recently" fallen in with the Cult, who would not have a high station within the hierarchy of the Cult, despite being a superior warrior. Though I willingly grant that you could also have a Hero level character within the Cult hierarchy. But at any rate my vote on the name for the upgrade remains "Devoted".

Finally on the balance issue of the Devoted. Of course we would have to keep an eye on the balance during playtesting. No question. But we'll have to keep an eye on the balance of all of the different units, there's really nothing new in this.
You highlight the potential balance issue in low point games. Maybe you are right, but personally I'm not really concerned. At 15 pts./model, the Devoted will quickly take up a significant portion of the available points, even at low numbers. And as you pointed out yourself, they are really vulnerable to ranged attacks. A unit of 10 Devoted costing 150-200 pts. can quickly be decimated by an enemy unit of 10 Archers or similar, who will likely cost about half or less than the Devoted. So again, I'm not concerned about this issue.

/Kyrel

[Weenth]

On the issue of "chaos cult armies with an elven general", I'll simply say that this is probably one of the places where our approaches differ. I agree that a mortal/Daemon army with a DE General might not be quite as effective as a mixed army, and thus would be unlikely to be fielded. However, since I find that such an army composition doesn't reflect the core nature of the army, I'd prefer to make sure that it would not be possible to field it.

Hmm... indeed we do have different approach here, and examples you give make me think the difference is as I gave here(correct me if I'm wrong):

As I understand IYO, 'not representative' means 'shouldn't be a possible build'. In my opinion 'representative' stands here for 'common/popular', so it's enough if such army is not as powerful as elf-including force (and thus not as attractive and rarely used or not used).

To elaborate:

your POV, if I understand correctly is:
- Each army has it's flavour/theme (in different aspects, but from what I gathered we're talking here about fluff rather than gamestyle).
- In case of CoS, that is IYO 'elven cult'.
- The given theme should be present in every single build possible with the list.
- So builds not fitting this theme shouldn't be allowed.

my POV is:
- Each army indeed has it's flavour/theme.
- I see that theme as 'alliance led by elves (Morathi)'
- I don't see it as uncrossable boundaries though, rather as what the core of army background is, with boundaries lying a bit farther.
- So builds not fitting main theme shouldn't become representative of the list (=common, often used).



So the difference seems to go down to two points:

1. We agree the elves are important part of the theme, though we differ in view of mortals & daemons meaning.

I agree that before Storm of Chaos times there weren't Mortals in the Cult, nor were there Slaaneshi daemons used (in combat context at least). The important thing for me is that there wasn't Cult of Slaanesh army at all then, at least as a considerable force than can be fielded in WFB game (not a Mordheim-like skirmish scale). So in Cult's army history Mortals play important role. Still, there is also place in Cult's army history (if we include F&B events) for no Mortals.

Still, this point I don't see as important problem - we agreed we want an armylist that can be fielded as any of these two options, so we effectively have two fluff-themes instead of one and our difference in POV on this one simply reflects two aspects, both of which are 'proper/correct'.


2. We agree that army fluff-theme should be prominent and represenative for majority of armies used by players. We also agree (I think) that list should encourage those not careing much for fluff (people who take pleasure from the game itself rather than story behind it; yes, I know there are also those who take it from both ) to use fluffy lists anyway. We differ in additude to those few armies who's owners would like to get outside of main theme simply for that reason - to get original fluff for their army.

My opinion is: if someone wants to take additional care and effort (no matter what aspects - making conversions, writing fluff for their army and/or playing underdog force) to get a unique army they like, I see no reason to stop them from that.

If this would require special effort on our (designers) side (such as including additional units), I can see the reason not to do it.

But I also see absolutle no reason to take effort to stop them. If anything, leaving option for them means more people would benefit from our list and have fun with it.

TBH, even if this would mean the list in question contradicts the fluff (and it's not the case here) I'd say, 'hey, it's the way they want to have fun'. To give another example - I would never paint my army drow-like with dark skin and white hair; I think it's D&D thing, not WH. I also don't see a reason to include half elves-half spiders in the list. But if someone wants to paint his army like that and use spider-centaurs with DR rules, that's fine with me (as long as it's just few players, not majority). I also think that including option of black-skinned white-haired Anointed in official CoS background was a nice gesture to those who like drows, but want to keep faith to WH fluff.



To sum up:

1. having choice of:
a) securing 'main theme compatibility' of grand majority of builds leaving also space for those who want something different (but still explainable fluff-wise)
b) securing 'main theme compatibility' of all builds, prohibiting those who want something different from using their list

I choose a) as a better choice - it keeps the list fluffy and let's more people have fun using it.

2. having choice of:
a) arbitrary rule which has aim, but no explanation fluff-wise
b) rule which has - to large extent - same aim, but also involves fluff in its explanation

I choose b)

So:
"You obligatory need those elves to summon daemons" is IMO definitly better than "You obligatory need those elves, punto."


As a side note - example you've given either were or, to an extent, are possible with the rules:

- Vampires leading alive units -> 6th ed VC von Carstein list from the back of AB with their Sylvanian Levy

- Chaos Lord-led ogre force -> WoC army with minimal core filled by Marauders (80 pts in 2000 pt army) and special/rare choices filled by WoC ogres and DoW (including OK) Ogres.

I think the latter is just as good as any other Chaos build (or actually, better that 'all-round horde), as I think fluff-wise there shouldn't really be any 'typical' Chaos army. I also miss the option of mixing different Chaos units (beasts&daemons&mortals) beacuse while I see reason of division in 'feel' for potential players and balance (to an extent - definitly harder to achieve it with so many options)

I also miss living units in undead army (or for that matter necromancer-led undead army rather than VC army). I see marketing reason for emphasising Vampires in the army (resulting in only 1 lvl necromancers), and giving undead rule to units that should by fluff be alive (ghouls, necromancers) surely makes army rules designing easier.

I really liked that back-of-the-book idea for Von Carsteins and was dissapointed to see live soldiers gone in SoC version of Sylvanian list.

I understand that GW wants their army to sell and it's easier with simplier, clearly defined fluff/themes (reaching its top in WAR division of Forces of Order/Destruction), yet what brought me to WH world (back when I was playing WFRP) was its nuances and diversity, shades of grey rather than black/white divisions.

In WFB I like to see Voo-doo-undead army (featured in one of WDs and on GW site), Nippon-army (count-as Bretonnia), Chaos Dwarf armies and lots of other going outside of 'default box' armies; not only because of their originality, but also because people making them usually put much more effort in their armies than 'average Joe player'.

Bah, ok, rant over, let's get back to meritorics.

My vote thus goes to "Devoted Champion". Or alternatively the 6th ed. "Mistress".

Well, not much options you give here, considering that Mistress is sex-dependant.

As for the Master Upgrade, then I'd say that an upgrade title of "Devoted" would simply signify an association with the Devoted of the Cult, and his title would thus remain "Master". Personally I could envision a Master "recently" fallen in with the Cult, who would not have a high station within the hierarchy of the Cult, despite being a superior warrior. Though I willingly grant that you could also have a Hero level character within the Cult hierarchy. But at any rate my vote on the name for the upgrade remains "Devoted".

Considering the Chaos Gifts the upgrade grants it's definitly and advanced, devoted follower, not someone who is simply a superior warrior. IMO "Devoted" is better than "Devoted upgrade" but still bland.

Anyway, I'd like to hear MA's opinion on names issue, so waiting for that now.

Finally on the balance issue of the Devoted. Of course we would have to keep an eye on the balance during playtesting. No question. But we'll have to keep an eye on the balance of all of the different units, there's really nothing new in this.

Ok, maybe my intention on this comment wasn't clear; what I meant was:
- the playtesting might 'spontanously' bring some things that need correction
- there are things that IMO for some reason (usually because they're untypical/new) need special attention in playtesting, so will require specific questions to playtesters (like: "try making a broken list based on Devoted") rather than solely waiting for the issue to comes up in feedback by itself. Devoted belong to that category, wheras, for example, Dark Riders IMO won't need such special attention.

You highlight the potential balance issue in low point games. Maybe you are right, but personally I'm not really concerned. At 15 pts./model, the Devoted will quickly take up a significant portion of the available points, even at low numbers. And as you pointed out yourself, they are really vulnerable to ranged attacks. A unit of 10 Devoted costing 150-200 pts. can quickly be decimated by an enemy unit of 10 Archers or similar, who will likely cost about half or less than the Devoted. So again, I'm not concerned about this issue.

I'm probably biased by fighting mainly WE, but in their case that unit of 10 archers will cost 120 pts, which is definitly over half the devoted cost and closer to their basic cost.

I don't have doubts one unit of WE Archers can handle one unit of Devoted. Where I see the problem is that I can field two Devoted units and a special or rare unit in addition to that (DR or shades to counter his shooting), wheras he's limited to his not as powerfull core choices (Devoted with 1 A basic can handle Dryads; with 2 A basic they'll eat them) and a single special or rare choice. Unless he goes for a fully-shooty army (a bit of paper-rock-scissors, hoping to bring me down before I get any chance to hit him in HtH) he'll be in trouble.

So, I do see a problem with core Devoted in such game. Considering that, my question is rather:

do you see any problem with given rule (Devoted core with SS, otherwise special)?

If not, I'm for inclusion of it.

[Kyrel]

To elaborate:
your POV, if I understand correctly is:
- Each army has it's flavour/theme (in different aspects, but from what I gathered we're talking here about fluff rather than gamestyle).
- In case of CoS, that is IYO 'elven cult'.
- The given theme should be present in every single build possible with the list.
- So builds not fitting this theme shouldn't be allowed.

You understand me correct.

my POV is:
- Each army indeed has it's flavour/theme.
- I see that theme as 'alliance led by elves (Morathi)'
- I don't see it as uncrossable boundaries though, rather as what the core of army background is, with boundaries lying a bit farther.
- So builds not fitting main theme shouldn't become representative of the list (=common, often used).

So the difference seems to go down to two points:

1. We agree the elves are important part of the theme, though we differ in view of mortals & daemons meaning.

I agree that before Storm of Chaos times there weren't Mortals in the Cult, nor were there Slaaneshi daemons used (in combat context at least). The important thing for me is that there wasn't Cult of Slaanesh army at all then, at least as a considerable force than can be fielded in WFB game (not a Mordheim-like skirmish scale). So in Cult's army history Mortals play important role. Still, there is also place in Cult's army history (if we include F&B events) for no Mortals.

Still, this point I don't see as important problem - we agreed we want an armylist that can be fielded as any of these two options, so we effectively have two fluff-themes instead of one and our difference in POV on this one simply reflects two aspects, both of which are 'proper/correct'.

Arguably we agree on this. I'm curious about something though. What makes you view the theme of the army as "alliance led by elves"? The reason I have a slight problem with that view is that an "alliance", as I understand the meaning anyway, describes a situation where two or more parties join together in a common purpose, because both parties stand to gain something from being allied with each other. When I think of the case with the Cult and Marauders, I can easily see the gain for the Cult, but what's the gain for the Marauders? As I read the fluff, the only reason the Marauders isn't attacking the Druchii is that they have been deceived by Morathi, and believe that she is some sort of avatar or representative of Slaanesh, and thus they believe that they are doing the bidding of their god, by following the commands of Morathi. This, IMO, is not an alliance. This is someone being used by Morathi, in order to serve as a tool to her, and aid in the accomplishment of her goals.
As for the Daemons, I'd say that this situation might even be more "obviously" evident. What are the Daemons gaining by fighting alongside the Druchii? Temporary access into the material world, sure, but anything else? And would they even be in the material world in the first place, if they were not summoned there by the Druchii for a specific purpose?
Finally I'd argue that the Druchii fluff supports a view of Dark Elves considering themselves superior to all other races, and thus other races can only ever be tools to them. Tools that can be used and discarded as desired.
Anyway. Just for the record, I'm not trying to tell you that your view can't be as good as mine, but I can't understand how you can see the relationship between the Druchii and Marauders/Daemons as being an "alliance", and I'd really like to understand how you come to that position.

2. We agree that army fluff-theme should be prominent and representative for majority of armies used by players. We also agree (I think) that list should encourage those not caring much for fluff (people who take pleasure from the game itself rather than story behind it; yes, I know there are also those who take it from both ) to use fluffy lists anyway. We differ in attitude to those few armies who's owners would like to get outside of main theme simply for that reason - to get original fluff for their army.

My opinion is: if someone wants to take additional care and effort (no matter what aspects - making conversions, writing fluff for their army and/or playing underdog force) to get a unique army they like, I see no reason to stop them from that.

As I read you, I too believe that we agree on this issue, at least part of the way. I have no problem with a player deciding that (s)he want their army to look out of the ordinary, and as a result uses alternative models, conversions, and unusual paint schemes to make their army look the way they want to. Nor do I give a damned about what background people might make up for their army. What I do have a "problem" with, however, is if you want to take an existing army, make a kind of army that doesn't represent the official fluff for that army, and then "pass off" your army as an army that is representative of said official army. I'll give you an example from 2nd ed. 40K. Picture a Space Wolf army consisting solely of a single huge unit of Terminator Wolf Guards all armed with Cyclone Missile Launchers and Assault Cannons who will teleport onto the battlefield anywhere they choose on their own turn, unleash an insane barrage of fire on the opposition, and then teleport off the board again at the end of their turn, never to return again during that game. The opponent effectively never gets to do anything but set up his army, roll saves, and remove casualties. The mentioned army was a perfectly legal build within the rules of the Space Wolf armylist at the time, but neither was it in any way sporting/fair/fun, and nor did it in any way represent the Space Wolf army as it was portrayed in the army fluff. GW themselves even at one point commented in a White Dwarf that this build went against everything they had ever intended, and that people really should try and not blatantly abuse armylists in such a manner. (Now, I don't know how familiar you are with 2nd ed. 40K, and thus I don't know how much of the above makes sense to you, but basically an Assault Cannon in those times could fire between 0 and 9 shots in a single turn, and a Cyclone Missile Launcher was basically a missile launcher with a set no. of Super Crack missiles that could be fired either one at a time, or as a salvo that would take up an area of something like ½" diameter (or radius, don't recall right now) per missile fired in the salvo. Anything fully covered by the resulting template would be automatically hit. If I remember correct, the Strength was 8 or 9, and the missiles hit with a -6 save modifier. Now picture 50 guys with this combination of weapons "Deep Striking" onto the battlefield, each firing 0-9 shots and firing all 12 missiles in a single salvo, before disappearing again. Get the picture...). Sorry about the long sidetrack there.
Anyway, my point is that if you are not fielding a force that represents the nature of the army described in the armybook, then you are not really playing that army. You are playing the rules. And it's not my impression this is what GW represents.
Disclaimer: I have no grief with people that don't give a damn about the background of the army they play, but I do not believe that this is the kind of attitude towards the game that GW promotes. But of course people can have fun playing in this manner as well.

If this would require special effort on our (designers) side (such as including additional units), I can see the reason not to do it.

But I also see absolutely no reason to take effort to stop them. If anything, leaving option for them means more people would benefit from our list and have fun with it.

Perhaps, but nor do I see any reason to lessen the importance of what I at least consider to be a core fluff element of the army, in order to placate a group of players who GW themselves, in my eyes at least, don't seem to focus on. I can appreciate your desire to let as many people as possible have fun with this book, but personally I'd rather make the book that I believe best marries the fluff and core nature of the army with the actual army rules. And IMO, what you suggest in this regard, would lessen this connection, weakening the overall end result.
Also, since this army can never become anything but "opponent's consent only", I see no reason having this little restriction in the army. Those players you defend should just as easily be able to get their opponent's consent to play an "elf-free" Cult army, if they so please.

TBH, even if this would mean the list in question contradicts the fluff (and it's not the case here) I'd say, 'hey, it's the way they want to have fun'. To give another example - I would never paint my army drow-like with dark skin and white hair; I think it's D&D thing, not WH. I also don't see a reason to include half elves-half spiders in the list. But if someone wants to paint his army like that and use spider-centaurs with DR rules, that's fine with me (as long as it's just few players, not majority). I also think that including option of black-skinned white-haired Anointed in official CoS background was a nice gesture to those who like drows, but want to keep faith to WH fluff.

True. Personally I'd have no problem playing against a person using a bunch of lego bricks and other toys to represent his army. But the visual representation of the army doesn't have any effect on the nature of the army, seen from a rules perspective, as long as the size of the individual models isn't changed.

To sum up:

1. having choice of:
a) securing 'main theme compatibility' of grand majority of builds leaving also space for those who want something different (but still explainable fluff-wise)
b) securing 'main theme compatibility' of all builds, prohibiting those who want something different from using their list

I choose a) as a better choice - it keeps the list fluffy and let's more people have fun using it.

2. having choice of:
a) arbitrary rule which has aim, but no explanation fluff-wise
b) rule which has - to large extent - same aim, but also involves fluff in its explanation

I choose b)

So:
"You obligatory need those elves to summon daemons" is IMO definitely better than "You obligatory need those elves, punto."

Arguably, but then you are IMO stretching the fluff too. The official fluff doesn't support saying that you need a bunch of Devoted to support the Sorceress in the summoning of Daemons. If anything, I'd argue that the fluff might even suggest the opposite, since Daemons are summoned by the Sorceresses, and these girls belong to a rather specific society that doesn't allow access to anyone. A bunch of Sorceresses (a coven) in Ghrond should easily be able to summon some Daemons without having to enlist outside help from individuals who do not have any magical abilities.

I suppose that this comes down to whether we should cater to the desires of a bunch of players that wishes to just "play the rules" and create armies that, frankly, would carry greater resemblance to regular Chaos Warrior armies than most Cult armies. Or if we should adopt the approach that GW IMO seems to take, and focus on making some rules that ensures a fit between the core nature of the army and the army that is going to end up being played on the tabletop. You seem to prefer the first version, in order to "please" the most players, I prefer the second one.

As a side note - example you've given either were or, to an extent, are possible with the rules:

- Vampires leading alive units -> 6th ed VC von Carstein list from the back of AB with their Sylvanian Levy

- Chaos Lord-led ogre force -> WoC army with minimal core filled by Marauders (80 pts in 2000 pt army) and special/rare choices filled by WoC ogres and DoW (including OK) Ogres.

I think the latter is just as good as any other Chaos build (or actually, better that 'all-round horde), as I think fluff-wise there shouldn't really be any 'typical' Chaos army. I also miss the option of mixing different Chaos units (beasts&daemons&mortals) beacuse while I see reason of division in 'feel' for potential players and balance (to an extent - definitly harder to achieve it with so many options)

I also miss living units in undead army (or for that matter necromancer-led undead army rather than VC army). I see marketing reason for emphasising Vampires in the army (resulting in only 1 lvl necromancers), and giving undead rule to units that should by fluff be alive (ghouls, necromancers) surely makes army rules designing easier.

I really liked that back-of-the-book idea for Von Carsteins and was dissapointed to see live soldiers gone in SoC version of Sylvanian list.

I understand that GW wants their army to sell and it's easier with simplier, clearly defined fluff/themes (reaching its top in WAR division of Forces of Order/Destruction), yet what brought me to WH world (back when I was playing WFRP) was its nuances and diversity, shades of grey rather than black/white divisions.

In WFB I like to see Voo-doo-undead army (featured in one of WDs and on GW site), Nippon-army (count-as Bretonnia), Chaos Dwarf armies and lots of other going outside of 'default box' armies; not only because of their originality, but also because people making them usually put much more effort in their armies than 'average Joe player'.

Bah, ok, rant over, let's get back to meritorics.

*Heh* I actually picked the Vampire counts example specifically because I thought about the very army you mention. However, I believe that those opponent consent army options were removed again for a reason, and were not originally given as much attention as the main army. I'll add that I have no objection including an optional army list that would allow those players you defend above, to play an "elfless" Cult army. Arguably such a version would be just as "good" as the main Cult army. And since both kind of armies will require opponent's consent, the two armies would be "equally official", so to speak.
As for having these alternate armies being opponent's consent armies in the 6th ed., I'd argue that this was done because they didn't represent armies that invoked the image that GW was looking for for that particular army.

My vote thus goes to "Devoted Champion". Or alternatively the 6th ed. "Mistress".

Well, not much options you give here, considering that Mistress is sex-dependant.

Honestly, I haven't really given it too much thought. None of the names you listed really struck a chord with me, but neither have I been able to come up with something better either. But as I never had any real problem with the old "Mistress" name, despite the gender suggesting issue.

As for the Master Upgrade, then I'd say that an upgrade title of "Devoted" would simply signify an association with the Devoted of the Cult, and his title would thus remain "Master". Personally I could envision a Master "recently" fallen in with the Cult, who would not have a high station within the hierarchy of the Cult, despite being a superior warrior. Though I willingly grant that you could also have a Hero level character within the Cult hierarchy. But at any rate my vote on the name for the upgrade remains "Devoted".

Considering the Chaos Gifts the upgrade grants it's definitely an advanced, devoted follower, not someone who is simply a superior warrior. IMO "Devoted" is better than "Devoted upgrade" but still bland.

Anyway, I'd like to hear MA's opinion on names issue, so waiting for that now.[/quote]

Agreed. MA where are you!

Finally on the balance issue of the Devoted. Of course we would have to keep an eye on the balance during playtesting. No question. But we'll have to keep an eye on the balance of all of the different units, there's really nothing new in this.

Ok, maybe my intention on this comment wasn't clear; what I meant was:
- the playtesting might 'spontanously' bring some things that need correction
- there are things that IMO for some reason (usually because they're untypical/new) need special attention in playtesting, so will require specific questions to playtesters (like: "try making a broken list based on Devoted") rather than solely waiting for the issue to comes up in feedback by itself. Devoted belong to that category, whereas, for example, Dark Riders IMO won't need such special attention.

Well, we pretty much mean the same thing, so no real disagreement here, I think

You highlight the potential balance issue in low point games. Maybe you are right, but personally I'm not really concerned. At 15 pts./model, the Devoted will quickly take up a significant portion of the available points, even at low numbers. And as you pointed out yourself, they are really vulnerable to ranged attacks. A unit of 10 Devoted costing 150-200 pts. can quickly be decimated by an enemy unit of 10 Archers or similar, who will likely cost about half or less than the Devoted. So again, I'm not concerned about this issue.

I'm probably biased by fighting mainly WE, but in their case that unit of 10 archers will cost 120 pts, which is definitely over half the devoted cost and closer to their basic cost.

I don't have doubts one unit of WE Archers can handle one unit of Devoted. Where I see the problem is that I can field two Devoted units and a special or rare unit in addition to that (DR or shades to counter his shooting), wheras he's limited to his not as powerfull core choices (Devoted with 1 A basic can handle Dryads; with 2 A basic they'll eat them) and a single special or rare choice. Unless he goes for a fully-shooty army (a bit of paper-rock-scissors, hoping to bring me down before I get any chance to hit him in HtH) he'll be in trouble.

So, I do see a problem with core Devoted in such game.

Making comparisons like this is always a challenge IMO, because what are the exact parameters for the comparison? Are we talking a 500 pts. game or a 1000 pts. game for instance? As you say, you might be able to take two units of Devoted along with some Dark Riders and Shades, and then use those units to deal with his Archers. But on the other hand your opponent will be able to take Dryads to deal with your Scouts, Eagle Riders to deal with your Dark Riders etc. Basically it's a chess game where both sides have something that can counter the other side's weapons.

Considering that, my question is rather:

do you see any problem with given rule (Devoted core with SS, otherwise special)?

If not, I'm for inclusion of it.

I do see a problem with that rule for a couple of reasons.

1) It changes the Devoted into the Special section, unless you bring a Sorceress Lord. This then effectively removes the option for bringing the Anointed in most average games. At least if you want to keep the Devoted Core for some reason. Such a change would certainly throw a spanner in the works for most of the Cult armies I've ever build.

2) From a fluff perspective I see no justification for such a change, and I'd say that the Devoted are a more logical choice for representing the Core of the Cult forces. They are after all the ones in the army that is...well...truly Devoted to the ideals of the Cult.


OK. It's 04.35. I'm hitting the sack. I'll likely be busy for the next couple of days, but I'll be back as soon as possible.

Since I didn't see you object against 15 pts. Devoted with 6th ed. stats and EH, can I assume that we can leave them at that unless playtesting proves them to be unbalanced at a later point?

Also, do we agree that our main discussion point above concerns the issue of compulsory inclusion of some sort of Elf unit. Either in the form of Devoted, as in the 6th ed., or in the form of a MoS marked Druchii unit, as I suggested in my last post?


/Kyrel