Moderators: Layne, The Dread Knights
Yes, it is an Enchanted Item. I toyed with idea of making it Arcane for a moment (that's where misleading wording came from), but decided against it, as there's already fierce competition there, while only few other Enchanted Items.Merlin wrote:Is the Tiara of the Dark Fairy Queen supposed to be an Enchanted Item? From the rules it sounds like only a wizard can use it.
There are two reasons we placed them there:grandmasterfred wrote:looks good but i cant help but wonder why chaos warriors are a rare choice knights i can under stand but warriors
Mr_PieChee wrote:May be warriors and knights should be easier to get if you have an Anointed in your list, to balance out the lack of demons? (2 warriors units for one rare, and knights only take up one rare slot).
This however would shift the balance of the army, and might make them a little too hardy? This could also cause a problem in large games, where you have one of each lord (you would get the SP's from the Supreme Sorceress, and the units from the Anointed)
Looks interesting, especially idea that Cytharai are actually children of Slaanesh.Sezax wrote:When it comes to compability of lore of Slaanesh and our new pantheon, I suggest you can be inspirew by my view:
http://sezax.wordpress.com/2009/05/14/cytharai-x-cadai/
)
I've also corrected all the other things you've listed.Yemeth wrote:Page 1, "Daemon Summoning", Paragraph 2, Lines 1-3
Paragraph 2 ; "The amount of Summoning Points that the army generates may never exceed its SP requirements, where these requirements are given by the total of Summoning Points necessary for fielding all daemoning units in the army."
I think it should rather be 'must equal or exceed' rather than 'may never exceed'? Anyway, I've rewriten whole text of this rule, hope it's clearer now.
Page 3, "Effigy of Excess", "Glory of the Pleasure God", Paragraph 1, Line 2,
"the Cult player" ; "the player"
further changes of "Cult player"/"Cult's player" to "player" won't be noted.
Corrected. I've checked whole document and corrected all 'Cult's player' to 'Cult player's'. I've also changed it to simply 'player' except places where it might cause confusion.
Page 4, "Mere mortals", Paragraph 1
Changed whole second sentence to 'Units with this rule never cause Panic tests to Dark Elf units.', makes it a bit shorter than before.
Weenth wrote:I think it should rather be 'must equal or exceed' rather than 'may never exceed'? Anyway, I've rewriten whole text of this rule, hope it's clearer now.
I've only checked the 'Cult player' parts now so if you're willing to proofread the rest of the text, by all means please do.Yemeth wrote:Should I go through the rest or is it proofread already?
Hi Deathknight!deathknight27 wrote:Sorry if this is a really silly question, but...
why are warriors 7 points (8 with shield) rather than 6/7? Similiarly, why are crossbowmen 11 points (12 with shield) rather than 10/11?
I can see the advantage of the unit over normal warriors (being able to have Slaanesh magic items etc), but that logic doesn't appear to be held throughout the army list (shades are still 16 pts base, for example, even though they have additional Slanesh options too...)
Glad to see you like it.deathknight27 wrote:I do like the list generally - it seems both very reasonable, balanced and, to be honest, is what warhammer is really about to me (using a rich diversity of troops in different combinations that might occur in the warhammer world. In recent years GW has (for understandable reasons) gone for more rigid lists that make no logical sense for the world that the units are fighting in (e.g. Malekith's degree, for example, that all warriors of Naggaroth must carry spears and light armour).
The list does still feel a bit divided though, as in it still reads a bit like "dark elf section, chaos section, dark elf section, chaos section". That may be the idea, but its a bit jarring?
Really like it overall though and think it has awesome potential Very cool =)
As for 'divided feel', that indeed was the idea - The whole list was inteded to a bit like 5th ed Chaos list - much variety, but in 'chunks' rather than wholy mixed. ). Hence keeping of unit-joining restrictions of 6th ed list (it also helps avoiding confusion with rules, like how to deal with druchii characters in daemonic units).Well, the name's taken from her 5th ed rules, so I'd think it's fine. IMO it's more of a poetic title, so some inaccuracy shouldn't be a problem.Yemeth wrote:Not sure about the name "Daggerdance" since Dechala uses swords.
Svenna and Isormre of course have their background, you can find it here. I simply haven't put it in the document, as I left all the fluff out of it for initial draft. I'm currently remaking whole file to fit the 7th ed style, so the background description will be there.Perhaps you could care to describe Svenna & Isormre a little more. A "newcommer" to the SoC is hit by the inevitable wave of "what?". Some little story or a more detailed general description should suffice.
It's hard for me to comment on this one, as BotGT hasn't been playtested yet (unless I forget about some report, the list has been tested in 500-2250 pts range so far). It's a modification of Azazel's special rule (5th ed RoC Special Character). While the original rule was fun it was definitely too powerfull for current editon (orignal worked in B-T-B contact only, but the effect was permanent rather than for one turn only).Page 15, "Banner of The Great Temptator", Whole,
quite a lot of things. IMHO, I'd just remove the banner, it's complicated and what we call an "over-combo". I'd stick with the Banner of Nagarythe, a slightly modified Banner of Nagarythe or at least I'd make the banner cheaper and it would only make the character attack his own unit or something. (+ the thing with original owner recieving the VPs makes the Banner veeeery tricky)
), so I'd rather keep it at current cost. The effect is still subject to change if the balance requires it (eg it might have shorter range). It might also change altogether, but then it won't be Banner of Nagarythe (as it doesn't fit the fluff), nor slight modification of it (as I feel the most powerful item in the army should be something original).I thought about that, but I wanted the item to have some real (in-battle) effect rather than just affecting army composition. It's current bonus is one use only and so situational (since Sorceress can't join daemons, they rarely will be in 6" while needing to roll for instability), so worth 5 pts at most. +1 SP might come as free or almost free on top of that, but remember that the Sorceress can't take any othe Arcane Items this way.I'd keep the rod a +1sp only
also, imho, the Neophyte knights are rather weak
And in CoS list they gain some importance, as they're one of the few high-AS units, providing also high-S punch on the enemy.
Usually some changes would be needed to better fit with CoS context anyway. I definitley agree it's a very good value unit in the DE list and agree that the higher points cost makes sense for the Cult of Slaanesh list.
Fluff-wise the CoS army is an alliance kept by force of one person (Morathi) rather than unified force. Marauders follow Morathi, but neither them, nor Druchii have forgotten that they fought each other not so long ago. Other Chaos Mortals are even more untrustfull towards Dark Elves, while Druchii OTOH see all the humans more as tools rather than commrades (though they kidna miss the point that human or elf, they're all tools to Morathi and Slaanesh anyway ).
That said, I think the divided feel might be currently enhanced by temporary worknames of the sections. For example rather than 'DE items' and 'Slaanesh items' there will be 'Valuts of Ghrond' and 'Artefacts of Slaanesh' lists.
deathknight27 wrote: Certainly a lot to think about and a solid seeming extra dimension to the game. If I get a chance to playtest it at all I'll come back to you with more comments - either way, thanks for doing this though, it seems very awesome so far Smile
One other minor comment - the pink colour fonts in the list don't come out very well when printed on a black and white printer. I know this can be worked around by each person trying to print by using their printer properties etc, but wondered if it might be worth making the pink a little darker (or offering a B&W version of the pdf)?
That list sounds interesting, I hope your opponent will agree. BTW two notes:Mr_PieChee wrote:I'm back home at the moment, and trying to get some games in. If possible I'm going to convince my opponent to let me play the COS list, and I'm going to try an army with 2 Chaos warrior units and lots of devoted with two effigys. I'm going to use the non economic list, since i'm not a fan of the change in devoted. I'll see how they play. However the effigy change seems reasonable to me (9 to 6 attacks)
I'm not sure that making ChW cheaper would work.Mr_PieChee wrote:As for the chaos warriors, there core in WoC, and so there designed to be used in numbers. Now in CoS there rare, so your only ever going to have a few of them. Therefore it would seem logical that making them a point cheaper would be an option, since it would make them more attractive without out balancing them? Allowing one unit to be chosen per anointed in the army seems like a good idea, and balances out the supreme sorceress summoning points, and core devoted.
Yes, this one's been discussed before. In short: There are no 1+ units in 7th ed books, so I wanted to remove such restrictions from our list too (also because it limits variety of the lists and whatever the reason, IMO it can be solved in a better way).MrPieChee wrote:Finally I just had a quick flip through and didn't spot a 1+ for devoted. At least one unit of devoted should be mandatory, as in the SoC rules. Sorry if this has been covered before...
(same goes for the changes I haven't commented on).
Yes it is. The reason is quite simple - stupidity is quite a big drawback for a spellcaster. I originaly gave this idea in my proposition of balancing house rules for DE (well, of those few unbalanced elements in DE list anywayMr_PieChee wrote:Just spotted something - the cold one mount for a supreme sorceress is 30pts in the druchii list, but only 6 in the cult list.... and only 4 pts for a sorceress... this is looking like its done on purpose... I should really go back and read the original threads.
). See here: http://www.druchii.net/viewtopic.php?t=58817 Note - That topic is quite old, hence some small differences in solutions given there and CoS list.Currently 4+ ward is for Effigy only. It might change yet, depending on how well EoE fares after reduction of it's Stubborn-aura. A free ward save for the Sorceress would be quite a big bonus, but OTOH she's likely to end up in combat and her stats are hardly suited to that.Mr_PieChee wrote:Is the 4+ ward wave of the Effigy of Excess granted to the 'rider of the monster', i.e. the sorceress? (this isn't included in the rules for the Effigy in the section before the army list. It might be an idea to include all its rules here, as well as in the army list so avoid simple minds like mine getting confused - I guess this will be the plan once the fluff is put together?)
No, it can't. I assume you're speaking of T3 variant, with 'integrated' Devoted unit? Anyway, it should be clear now, as current version of EoE works on it own (although can join units).Mr_PieChee wrote:And can a unit of devoted with an Effigy of Excess get the eye of the pleasure god bonus if it doesn't have a champion?
