The big 3: If DoC and VC are broken, how broken are DE?

[Dalamar]

It looks like this:

Code: Select all

         Slaanesh
             |
Nurgle ------------Tzeentch
             |
          Khorne

Opposites would never or almost never ally with each other, they are the polar opposites of each other. It should not be allowed for those to be allied, or heavily penalised if they are (And we already sorted out the Siren Song + Bloodthirster problem in one swoop).
But it would limit army list possibilities = reduce sales by some small margin.

[Randy]

@Danceman: Yeah... I can't validate my comments on 40K, they're just my impressions.

Do however still believe that the DoC could have been written with more character and in turn will make appear to be "less cheesy". As you mentioned, there is loads of great fluff in the backgrounds about infighting between the Gods, the fickle will of chaos, the surges of magical energy that bring about the tides of chaos blah blah. Much of that forms the core narrative structure for so many other WH armies.

But none of that is really seen in the actual mechanics of the game.

Apart from unit descriptions and magic item descriptions, I don't know of any special rules which brings out these ideas which could / would create possible limitations to army builds and add a bit or randomness to the gameplay. And it would be more interesting...

[Randy]

Sorry, just realised I was pretty much repeating what Dalamr was saying, but it seems as tho a few people have made that observation...

I would imagine adding this sort of depth to the DoC list would reduce it's smell of "cheese" a tad... DE has a little bit of that (stupidity, khainite) but could even take it further IMO.

[Dalamar]

Daemon animosity!

At the beginning of every turn roll for every daemon unit devoted to a god that has a unit devoted to another god in their LoS and charge range.

1: The unit charges their hated, temporary, allies. Neither unit can move further, both units fight a single round of close combat in close combat phase, after which the attacker is moved 1" direcly back. No instability tests are taken.
2-3: The unit decides to show other daemons that they're "stronger, prettier, smarter, smellier" and moves 2d6" towards nearest visible enemy. This replaces their normal movement and counts as a charge if brought into contact with the enemy unit (charge reactions as normal)
4-6: Unit behaves as the general commands.

If the visible daemon unit is devoted to opposing god (nice chaos star picture on the page), substract 1 from the roll, to a minimum of 1.

Would Daemons still be considered overpowered if their own flesh hounds flank charged plaguebearers instead of flank charging the enemy?

(Furies excluded as they're undivided)

[Randy]

They used to have animosity in 5th edition, not sure how it went, but I think that would be a fantastic rule which would leave the DoC army as it is, but would require the player to use some thought when composing an army list and placing units in the deployment phase (arguably the win/loose phase of most games)...

I would even make the animosity at 1-2: charge friendly unit, 3-4: unit charges ahead, 5-6: unit behaves normally. The severity offsets the current power lists that are open to them and I think it'll bring out the idea of the "fickleness" of the Gods and that their alliances are temporary and fleeting... If everything goes right, they're unstoppable (as the list is currently played) but if the will of the God's changes, it could go terribly wrong. Poor unit management could result in a loss...

I'd also add: daemons of a different mark to a character (general, herald, BSB etc...) cannot use any of it's abilities, Ld or special rules unless specifically mentioned.

Somewhat off topic, but could be an interesting thread in itself.

[Rork]

I mean, Khorne herald joining a unit of plaguebearers because they have a "reroll to wound, plaguebearers only" banner?

Well, Heralds of one god can't join units of another god. The fact that the special characters can 'wither their wilt' is an oversight, though.

Has GW got the way you combine things together right? Probably not. But even Hordes of Chaos-style restrictions are probably too much - The gods do send their daemons to work together, maybe not often, so it should be legal even under a Greater Daemon.

Just because you do take a Greater Daemon shouldn't dictate that you have a mono-god army. Maybe make only its core count towards the minimum.

But ultimately, it's hypothetical.

[Dalamar]

Nothing in my daemon army book prevents heralds from joining units of other gods. Locus rule doesn't stop them, it just makes their own units stronger.

[Danceman]

Animosity would be wierd. I do not think the mini-minions of either gods would defy the command(or can for that matter) of their lord and master. There are plenty of examples on the gods "co-oping" to get things done, these pacts doesnt exactly last as they tend to be short-term goals to hurt one of their brothers.

Though how did we end up discussing daemon background

Dalamar; on the same page where the daemonic rule is described there is a gray box which says you can only join units of their respective patron god. Page 30.

[Dalamar]

I hate silly little gray boxes <.<
Thanks for the info.

Still that doesn't stop the sillyness of skulltaker going with plaguebearers... hey! they give him reroll to wound on his 5+ killing blow! >.>

[Danceman]

I wont argue with your there, not even for a second. Though I have never, and will never use a special character of any book unless to re-enact some historical battle or some kind of campaign. They're called special characters for a reason, or were called so I guess, as now they're only a sort of "0-1" choice it seems.

And yeah, those boxes are annoying. So used to having some fluff bit writte in them but not this time!

[Dalamar]

Oh, I don't mind special characters at all as long as they're used to bring out the fluff of the army.
Skulltaker and Karanak in Khorne force
Lokhir in Corsair list
Teclis in a magic/swordmaster heavy army
etc.

[Shrike]

Hehe, I always find it so amusing when someone has trouble spotting a rule. "But it looked like fluff- so of course I skipped over it entirely!". You could just read the fluff as well you know

[Dalamar]

I read the fluff
But it's hard to spot when you read your daemon book for the first time in months to find a single hidden rule <.<

[Kurt_wulfraign]

Bah, all this whinning about this is broken, that's overpowered. There is very good solution to fix every "broken" army and you don't have to do anything to the books: just add (random?) Scenario's (like in 40K)

By making some "Objectives" that are worth 500 point (for example!) that can ONLY be claimed by non-summoned core-units Us 10+ you have suddenly changed everything and suddenly other armies are being called "broken"!

Another example: The Build Scenario: minimum D3+2 Forest on the tabletop. Each Forest is worth 500 points, nothing else counts for VP. You control a forest when there are no other enemy unit(s) within 2" of it.

Suddenly Wood Elves are incredibly more powerful in this build.

See what I mean? Scenario’s are the way to go, and I would prefer to random determine which one it will be.
It never makes you in building a weaker list with dumb restrictions, like the ridicules ETC rules.

As for daemons: I haven't met a single player that could show me a daemon list that is broken and unbeatable, not one !

just my 2 cents,

bye,
Kurt

[Weenth]

Bah, all this whinning about this is broken, that's overpowered. There is very good solution to fix every "broken" army and you don't have to do anything to the books: just add (random?) Scenario's (like in 40K)

By making some "Objectives" that are worth 500 point (for example!) that can ONLY be claimed by non-summoned core-units Us 10+ you have suddenly changed everything and suddenly other armies are being called "broken"!

The underlined fragments about sum up what I don't like about such solution. Having randomness as to who's 'the broken one' doesn't make the game balanced - it fixes each broken army at a time, but not every of them at the same time.

In other words:
- currently when Ogres face DoC you can quite easily guess who'll win before they even finish desiging their lists.
- with random scenarios you couldn't guess that easily before desiging the lists, but you'd still know the rough outcome before they actually start to play


IMO if the game is to be used for competitive playing, then the result should be visible only after at least few turns of actuall playing, sometimes only after the whole match. It should depent on player's skill more than luck.

The only thing random scenarios solve is the problem of 'he wins all the time'. It doesn't change the fact that both player's skills can still often be largley irrevelant to the result.


I'd like a game that allows for equall tactical challange for both participants. If I want full/almost full randomness I'd rather play dice (...or WH Quest ). Sadly, it looks like GW decided that balanced rules are not the best money-maker... oh well, noone says I have to use unmodified official rules...

Although I'm not suprised that people who want competitive play and have leaving Warhammer as only real alternative to using official rules (like devoted tournament players) moan about discrepancies between the books. Also, while some may like 'uphill battle' (like that of the 6th ed DE), the others can equally dislike it and prefer balanced conditions. I don't think 'you should think about solution instead of whining' comments would do any good to the latter... especially if people saying them happen to be on the bright side of the fence.

[Dalamar]

I don't think 'you should think about solution instead of whining' comments would do any good to the latter... especially if people saying them happen to be on the bright side of the fence.

I've been saying that in 6th edition as well. Not my fault the fence moved.

[Weenth]

I don't think 'you should think about solution instead of whining' comments would do any good to the latter... especially if people saying them happen to be on the bright side of the fence.

I've been saying that in 6th edition as well. Not my fault the fence moved.

Agreed. What I wrote wasn't meant as a personall attack in any way (sorry if it felt like one), it was rather about the fact that such texts don't make people feel any better and IMO usually to the contrary. So far I've seen very little of what I'd consider 'whining' (unreasoned lament) in this thread, but quite a lot of meritoric critque of the current game balance, so I'd say these comments were a bit unfair.


BTW I think GW must indeed have very good marketing if:
- many people complain that GW minis are way overpriced
- many people complain that WFB lacks balance
- many people complain that GW marketing & PR is poor

and yet GW makes its profit on WFB... though I can't say I'm a fan of such marketing myself. The only reason I'm still playing is because I have very big sentiment towards Warhammer univerese and play only with my friends - we're used to inventing new rules or modifying ones we don't like to our taste - be it WFB, old Talisman or Settlers of Catan. Sad thing is that while non-GW games we play usually need modifications only to keep them fresh (like new scenarios for Settlers), the GW ones often need them from the start... and in WFB case it looks like this will get worse in the future.

Ok, I'll end my rant here... I guess it's just hard for me to accept that game balance is, at the very best, secondary thing to GW as games producent.