Weenth wrote:Ok, many topics, many different opinions and questions, on many levels – from single-unit-rule to idea of army. Will try to comment on all that, but with big questions being my main concern. So:
I. General background and army composition
I think we should remember what was the idea of this project; did write about it in ‘The Cult of Pleasure - a question/suggestion’ (btw Kyrel, could you rename it to something like ‘CoS – general background’ or other to such meaning? Would be a bit more informative), but in short – look at the name of this thread: a Cult of Slaanesh re-write
- For me its: Slaanesh, not Atharti and: re-write, not complete overhaul;
- Background-wise: Slaanesh, his daemons and followers present;
- Game-wise: new version of 6th ed CoS list; so some tweaking of rules, maybe some new units and/or removal of 1, max 2 original ones; Changes Wood Elves got between 5th and 6th ed armybooks are I believe about both the needed and acceptable level; basically, as with official ABs rewrites, one should be able to still use most of his models from previous edition and keep similar fighting style. To put it short – I believe main ‘target’ of this armylist should be people who played 6th ed CoS list; so we need a list most of them would like, If new people become attracted to it, so the better, but not at the cost of those who already devoted time and money to come up with CoS army - it’s enough that GW screwd them (us) making the list illegal soon after SoC;
Some other thoughts:
1. In SoC fluff Cult is no longer hiding, nor does it necessarily has to afterwards. TBH, I believe if it would, fielding its army is questionable in itself and it definitely would be needed to leave out Marauders, Warriors, Knights and Anointed (near impossible to hide in Naggaroth), thus changing much of the original list. So while there are different options to choose from concerning its status in Naggaroth, ‘we pretend we don’t exist’ is definitely a bad one IMO.
You know, we should probably have a small discussion on which “period” we are trying to create the Cult army for.
If it’s supposed to be prior to the Storm of Chaos, then I’d say that this would mean that there shouldn’t be any access at all to Marauders, Chaos Warriors/Knights, and Anointed. I can’t say that I’m really in favour of that option.
If the aim is to create the Cult as it looked during the Storm of Chaos, then what do we really need to change? The army worked well as it were, and in this case, I kind of think that we are spending a whole lot of time on something that should really be pretty easy, as the armylist and rules are all there already, and IMO don’t really need to be changed very much at all. We could argue that Shades should be Special, Marauder Horsemen should be available as Core, and the Magical Items would probably need a makeover, but as I see it, that’s really it. We could then argue over the background fluff, but “gamingwise” that would really be secondary. The “downside” to this option is that it basically scraps all the existing fluff concerning the Druchii Civil War. On the other hand, it would seem that GW officially has turned the clock back to prior to the Storm of Chaos anyway, so arguably Morathi might not even have recruited the marauder tribe(s) on that timeline yet (which arguably invalidates what we are trying to do at the moment…).
Finally we can try and “upgrade” the Cult to fit in with the post Storm of Chaos period. Personally I’d prefer that option, as it IMO represents the most interesting one, and leaves us the most room to manoeuvre with regards to what we’d like to do with the army. On the downside though, it’s by far the most workintensive option, and in order to make the existing fluff fit, we should IMO make the Marauder/Chaos Warrior/Knight/(Spawn) options either significantly more restricted then they were in the 6th ed. or even eliminate them entirely from the list. Elimination would probably fit the best with the fluff, but I agree that it might be a bad idea to eliminate the Human elements entirely.
Weenth wrote:2. Please look at these two lists: <1000 pts> <2000 pts> These are from australian GW site – as usual with GW example lists, rather varied (although both leave out Marauders) and about ‘what’s cool’ than well-thought-out powergaming; I believe if people who made them would have to leave more than 33% at home due to changes in the list, then something might need rethinking. If they have to leave more than 50% it’s IMO a clear sign we’re off. That of course isn’t an answer to all our issues, but still a kind of useful guideline I guess.
Besides a possible objection to the Chaos Knights in the 2000 pts. army, there is nothing in the two armies that I would object to being in the Cult army today. I’d actually find those two armies more in line with what I’d like to see Cult armies look like, than the Cult armies with loads of Marauders in them. But again. It should ultimately come down to what period of time we want the make the army reflect.
Weenth wrote:3. We do want to create 7th ed list; so I think general army power level should be compared to other 7th ed ABs. This means that it might be more powerful than some 6th ed armies, but as long as it’s about the level of 7th ed DE I think it’s ok.
4. Now, apart from general army power there is the ‘Cheese aspect’:
- Most of official armybooks allow for cheesy lists to be created. To fully eliminate that there either would be much more complicated rules needed or eliminating many balanced lists as well.
- So what I think our aim in this respect should be is not to go above average level of potential abuse. Again, IMO ‘vanilla’ DE armybook (unlike, for example 7th ed VC) fits that (well, except for PoK maybe
), so should be used for comparison.
5. last side note
– I agree with Taserak’s suggestion that the list should be made so that those who want a pure druchii/daemon force can do so without it being an underdog list. Such force would of course be more limited in choice than ‘full CoS’, but would still be more varied than, for example tree-spirit WE list or one-god DoC army.
No objections on this from my side. The army should, of course, be balanced with the other 7th ed. armies, and I’ll support having the option of not having to include Marauders at all, and still have a viable army. Actually, that might be a way of representing whether the army is supposed to be pre, during, or post Storm of Chaos.
Weenth wrote:Below comments on non-druchii parts of the CoS army.
General note – I do agree Druchii cultists – and even moreso Sorceresses - see human Slaanesh followers and Daemons as tools. But, I believe, not tools as in:
‘you’re just a tool, so leave main fighting to us, the druchii, and be of some help there on the flank’
As more druchii way IMO would be:
‘you’re the tool: you do the risky fighting and dying, we take the glory’
So I believe non-druchii parts should be limited to meatshield or offensive CC attacker role, which I believe is already done by choice of units available. Also – except fluff in some cases – no reason to cut down options on non-druchii units; they are brought to battle to fight and while seen as a tool, Sorceress should be pleased if they’re an effective one at their purpose.
II. Chaos Mortals
1. Warrios/Knights Availability
- I believe we all agree that by 6th ed SoC background Warriors/Knights should be both available and limited. I think current line (of 1 unit per Anointed; limited max unit size) is ok, might also be more units, as long as we can find a simple way of them being 25% of army at most (Anointed not included in that).
- As for background I have no problem with envisioning them as Anointed’s retinue. Being (and beliving) one’s a superior being doesn’t mean one won’t accept servants (Slaan and Lizardmen being one example). I do see the 6th ed unit-joining rules problem, still, Dechala and her Tormentors shows it’s more a rule-thing than fluff-thing (might have to do with 20mm base of Anointed or maybe they thought putting one in a Warrior/Knight unit makes a cheesy combo? More on that later)
- After reading a bit on Marauders&Warriors (in short: such division is more in the eyes of Empire people; marauders/warriors rather see themselves as one, just more or less advanced on the path of/blessed by their gods) I think it would be acceptable to include them without Anointed; this however would need new way of limiting their number.
- Balance-wise such limited number of Warriors/Knights doesn’t make for a cheesy list, so is IMO ok. Also they do fulfill the role of reistant unit in the army, which otherwise lacks it.
When it comes to limiting their numbers, the most simple way of doing it is to just move all of the Marauders into the Special section, and all Warriors into the Rare section. This serves two purposes. 1) You get a limit on how many of these units you get to see in the army, compared with the Druchii elements. 2) It allows us to advance the fluff to post Storm of Chaos where most of the Human elements of the Cult army will have been killed off during the Lustria campaign, or enslaved following the end of the ensuing Civil War. From a fluff perspective, I believe that we would be able to defend that Morathi still being able to call on a limited number of surviving tribes. By doing things this way, we continue to allow access to the Chaos Human troops, but just not in the same qty. as during the Storm of Chaos.
Weenth wrote:2. Warriors/Knights Options
- I believe Warriors should have access to upgrades and magical banners. They are elite units, so deserve them balance-wise.
- Fluff-wise, I agree Sorceress wouldn’t probably grant them with one, and that’s why they shouldn’t have access to Treasures of Naggaroth banners. If they have magical banner, they either were granted with it by Slaanesh himself, or got it by defeating some other Warband in Chaos Wastes. So should IMO be able to take one either from Artefacts of Slaanesh (Banner of Wrath, Rapturous Standard) or common list(Warbanner).
Agreed.
Weenth wrote:3.Marauders
Short and simple:
- they were core in 6th ed CoS, which fits 6th ed fluff and doesn’t hurt army balance, so should stay core.
- Marauder Horsmen are new to the list, but again, fit 6th ed fluff. I believe lack of them would be fluff-wise even more unfitting than lack of footed marauders. Also together with new faster Daemonettes they fill the hole left after core Shades.
<BTW Furies might be left as core-not-counting-towards-core; this maybe leaves us with a bit too much of the core choices, but would give option of fast core in druchii/daemon type CoS list>
Heh. Basically I think that this particular issue will have to be dictated by which period we are trying to depict the Cult in. As I’ve written before, if we go after pre or post Storm of Chaos, then I believe that there would be a significant difference in how common Marauders would be in the army. As I’ve also said elsewhere, then I believe that it will be most interesting to describe the Cult in the post Storm of Chaos setting, even if it would appear that GW has decided not to advance the setting to that time (despite having created fluff for it already…). Anyway. As I’d like to see the focus be on the Druchii and their relationship with the Cult, then I believe that Marauders and Chaos Warriors/Knights should be kept out of the Core section, and moved to the Special (Marauders + Horsemen), and Rare (Warriors/Knights). If we necessarily want to remove Shades from the Core section of the army, and replace them with a Fast Cavalry unit, then I suggest that we move the Dark Riders from the Special section to the Core section in stead, as I believe that this will be a more logical step.
But again. If we are simply “updating” the 6th ed. Cult army to 7th ed rules, and focusing on the Cult during the Storm of Chaos, then why make changes to what goes where at all? Unless something is obviously broken when playtested.
Weenth wrote:
III. Daemons
1. Daemon Binding
- I don’t think that Daemon units need to be made different form DoC ones; on the contrary – as both are Daemons appearing in the mortal realm I believe we should keep them same, unless balance requires it.
- For me it’s questionable if additional tactical challange for itself is worth additional rules. It might, if it helps the ‘flavour’ of the army. Binding rules so far promote defensive playstyle, which is contrary to what I believe fits either CoS or its ‘mother-parts’ (DE, DoC, WoC). So from game-play perspective it’s ‘more complication for less flavour’. Hardly a good deal.
- It also helps the problem of ‘how to give bonus to daemons to balance penalty binding gives’; so twice less additional rules
- the link between Sorceresses and Daemons can be represented in availability of daemonic units, as already discussed in idea that number of sorceresses limits number of units to be summoned. Nice and simple, and IMO enough in that regard.
As a general note – I am tired of binding rules. Despite coming up with many ideas in that regard we still don’t have a version that I feel would work alright. If you guys are inclined in including them, I believe they do need more work and playtesting, but I myself will remain on ‘Scrap them’ POV for now and direct my energy elsewhere (not that there’s shortage of issues in this project )
You know, despite being behind several of the different suggestions for possible binding rules, I’ll support Weenth’s take on the issue here as being the best approach. I’ll accept the Binding rules for the additional tactical challenge it would pose, and the extra “flavour” it might add, but the best solution would be to just represent the Binding link between Daemons and Sorceresses with a limit on how many Daemonic unit you can bring in the army.
Depending on the final version of which units goes into which categories (Core, Special, Rare), and what, if any, special rules we decide on, I’d agree or disagree that Daemonic units should have access to their normal “upgrades” or not. No matter what though, I’ll agree that it is by far the easiest thing just to leave the units as described in their entries in their own armybooks.
Weenth wrote:2. Daemon Availability
- I believe 1 unit per Sorceress and 2 per Supreme Sorceress is for most lists enough of a restriction.
- It would still be possible to make a cheesy 2000 pts ‘uber-heavy-magic&daemons force’:
# 1 kited-out SS
# 3 kited-out Sorceresses
# 10 Devoted
# 15 Daemonettes
# 10 Daemonettes
# 6 Seekers
# 6 Furies
# 3 Fiends
And still some points for upgrades or some more models in units.
Background-wise it’s just acceptable (convent of sorceresses together with few cultists needed for a ritual summon a daemon army), balance-wise it’s cheese. But, TBH, the cheese part is 10 magic levels in 2000 pt army, which is also perfectly available in regular DE list (where one would also be able to take much more cheesy set of units than these daemons).
Conclusion: I believe current version of limiting daemons is about ok. Would make a little bit more of limitation on daemons in that they require inclusion of Devoted (see below).
I more or less covered this above, but again. Weenth and I agree on this.
Weenth wrote: 3. Daemon Options
- I do belive they should have all options available to them in DoC. As given above, I don’t think their ‘tool-character’ explains cuting them down on that.
- As for magical banners, they don’t get that in DoC, to start with. They do get Daemonic Icons, which are Daemonic Gifts, not MI (one of important differences being that you can have multiplies of them in the army). So background-wise Sorceresses don’t give anything away – Icons materialise together with Daemonettes.
Good argument. I’ll buy that.
Weenth wrote: 4.Furies
- as given in their fluff, they are both most common daemons, and also may vary in form, depending on what is the main power. So where Slaaneshi followers summon daemons, they do get Slaaneshi form. So I believe they fit both visually and fluff-wise.
- Rule-wise, as mentioned, they are certainly needed if we want mortal-less army option fully viable. Then they should be core, but not count towards minimum – which would also reflect their status of common, but unstable daemons quite nicely.
Good enough for me. Agreed.
Weenth wrote: 5. Herald as SC unit upgrade
- we would need background reason for such character to be available only to CoS and not DoC, hard thing to do with a daemon as they are hardly limited by time or space
- he should be rather Alluress (Daemonette Champion) power level IMO if he’s a unit upgrade and cannot leave unit, so does not replace Herald function
-all in all, not worth it in my opinion
I thought that the Herald was always discussed as being a regular Hero type character!? If we are looking to add an option to let regular Daemonette units have the ASF rule, and we are talking about allowing a Hero (or similar type character) as a unit upgrade, then I’ll oppose that. I’d say No to a Herald Hero option as well.
Weenth wrote:
On druchii-part of the army:
I. Anointed
1.Anointed stats&options
- he’s stats are virtually the same as in 6th ed. Except he’s only T3 now. Background-wise he worships Slaanesh (whose interest lies elsewhere than physical resilience) and is an elf, so should be less resilient than regular Chaos Lord. In that respect both T3 and T4 are ok. Still, balance-wise reasoning was that T3 characters is an offset of elven armies and being in big part an elf army (or similar in this respect Slaaneshi-daemon army) we decided he should also have T3. This also helps to keep him away from being ‘unkillable tank’, while he still is a bit better than Chaos Lord on the offensive part (Eternal Hatred going a long way here).
Why on earth are we talking about changing the Anointed to T3??? Because he’s an Elf and if we don’t then he’ll risk being an unstoppable tank!? Sorry guys, but I have to differ on this one (too
). Yes, he’s arguably an Elf, but he’s also a 5000 year old Elf that quite frankly is better compared to a Chaos Lord in all respects than an Elf lord. Chaos Lords are T5. T4 for the Anointed is fine. T3 might be more “Elf like”, and it would also make him more killable, but allow me to say this. T4 is not all that hard to kill in the first place, especially not by for warmachines and enemy characters (which I think is the kind of enemies that will be gunning for the Anointed in the first place.). Also, we are talking about a character that is quite easily taking up close to a full quarter of an army. Anything with a pricetag in that area shouldn’t be something that is going to fall too easily.
Eternal Hatred is admittingly something that I hadn’t considered for the Anointed. Frankly I’d forgotten that he had Hatred in the first place, and I’ll have to admit that I think that giving him Eternal Hatred is a bad idea. 1) I think that it’s overpowered, at least without giving him a cost increase, and 2) In my view, Eternal Hatred is something that had developed in the Druchii since the Sundering. The Anointed has been touring around the Chaos Wastes for all that time. Why would they develop an overt hatred towards all other races? I’ll buy that they still have Hatred against the High Elves, but not having had to live with the constant indoctrination that “High Elves are usurpers to the Phoenix Throne and suck!” ought to, in my mind at least, mean that they might not have the same kind of Hatred against the High Elves as the average Druchii of “today”. Basically my suggestion is that we retain the Anointed as T4, but don’t give him Eternal Hatred, but only regular Hatred (High Elves). Yes it breaks a little with the common trend with the Druchii, but I believe that it’s defendable.
Weenth wrote:2. Anointed’s Warband
- as written earlier, I think Anointed should be allowed to join Warriors/Knights, unless this makes too powerful combination. Needs checking out items/gift combos on Anointed (check CoS Magic Items thread) and playtesting apparently.
I’ll admit that my view on the Anointed is as a sort of solitary wanderer, which in my mind would explain why you can not use one as the army General. Basically he’s not a leader type, as I see him. For the same reason I’m a little opposed to having him be able to join Chaos Warrior/Knight/Marauder units, and similar to let the presence of an Anointed determine how many units of Chaos Mortals you can include in the army. That being said though, I must concede that it is an “elegant” way of limiting the number of Warrior/Knight units within the army. Ultimately we should probably talk a little about what our vision of the Anointed is. But we should probably do that in another thread. And yes. This issue will need some playtesting.
Weenth wrote:3. Anointed magic
- DE Sorcerers also are not part of the Convents
- Elves practiced Dark Magic even before sundering
- Anointed (at least most of them, as by 6th ed. SoC background) left Druchii when Khaine’s cult came to power, so when Druchii as a nation already existed
Conclusion: I see no background reason for their magic to be any different. So if we’re to change that it should be because of rule-balance needs. I did propose that myself (with one of their magic levels being effect of Slaaneshi Chaos Gift) but that is rather developing fluff to fit rules than the other way round.
I can pretty much agree with Weenth on this as well. I’d modify the Lore access the Anointed has access to though, compared with which lores a regular Sorceress has access to. I’d to this for fluff reasons, as I believe that this would underpin the fact that Anointed aren’t your average Druchii. Basically I’d provide an Anointed access to Dark Magic and the Daemon Lore of Slaanesh, and nothing else. Dark Magic for the same reason mentioned by Weenth, and the Daemon Lore of Slaanesh because I believe that it would be quite fitting for a creature like an Anointed, who has travelled the Chaos Wastes (and possibly the Realms of Chaos themselves?) for 5000 years to be a bit different than your average Sorcererss/Mage.
Weenth wrote:II. Devoted
1.Stats,skills&cost
- I also, like Kyrel, prefer changing name of their special rule rather than the rule itself.
- I believe at 12 pts they were very good unit in 6th list. Now they get EH to that. So I believe those 12 pts is too cheap rather than too expensive and makes them a no-brainer over Daemonttes (especially if any binding rules are involved). Still, a more costy core unit doesn’t seem right to me. That’s why I’d lower their Attacks to 1 basic (so 2A with AHW) and leave them at original 12pts cost. Playtested them in this form in 3 battles so far, and do believe they’re neither over- or under- costed in this way.
To be honest guys, rather than reducing their combat potential by educing their no. of Attacks, I'd MUCH rather remove the Eternal Hatred, and just give them regular Hatred (High Elves). The Devoted worked fine like that in 6th ed., and if we want a fluff explanation, then I believe that we can say that since the Devoted has given themselves over to Slaanesh, and devoted their existences to sensual and mental gratification, then their world don't revolve around their hatred towards the High Elves to the same extend as the rest of the Druchii race.
While I can probably agree that 2A might not be unbalanced as such, reducing their no. of Attacks by 1/3 is pretty drastic, and it effectively lowers their potential damage output by 1/3 as well.
But this too is something that we should really be playtesting, in order to get some concrete results to compare.
Weenth wrote:2.Availability (Mandatority? )- giving Devoted two levels of min unit size would be IMO unnecessary complication; don’t see what purpose would that serve.
- As written before, I think the problem with mandatory units is that they limit composition of small (500-1000 pts) forces too much.
- OTOH it doesn’t do anything about their prominence in big (3000+) forces
- Fluff-wise CoS force without Devotees is explainable (Sorceresses might take only lower level cultist in the form warriors or maybe they took only marauders with them, as they expect most of the army to die in certain mission), yet should be rare. So I’d rather find a way to promote their inclusion than make them mandatory.
- How about:
Daemon summoning
Prior to battle Sorceresses and cultists make orgiastic rituals, summoning Slaaneshi daemons to support them in battle. Your army must include at least one unit of Devoted to include daemonic units. Furthermore, you may only take one daemonic unit per each Sorceress and two per each Supreme Sorceress in the army.
A bit more fluffy way would be:
- 1 daemonic unit per S, 2 per SS
- 1 daemonic unit per marked mortal unit, 2 per Devoted unit
- both of these limits must be obeyed
But that is less promoting for Devoted and at the same time too complicated IMO.
The idea is interesting, but as you say yourself Weenth, it might be adding more complexity to the game than we really need to. Personally I’m in favour of keeping the 1 unit mandatory unit in the army, but I do see what you mean with regards to restricting the composition of small armies. I’ll throw in another suggestion though, which I believe would favour both sides of the argument:
You must include at least one unit of Devoted in the army per 2000 pts. worth of army (0+ in 0-1999 pts., 1+ in 2000-3999 pts. etc.). Weenth wrote:III. Shades
- in 7th ed too powerful to be a core unit
- don’t want any sort of a-bit-special-limited-core rules for them, as we already have quite a few specific rules for unit inclusion (daemons, warriors/knights, devoted), so the less, the better.
- not needed in core, as there are Marauder horsemen, M6 Daemonettes and Furies.
- we already have plenty of core choices
Conclusion: leave them in special
Something more for us to disagree on (at least for the time being…). I’d prefer to keep Shades within the Core section, as:
1) They were Core in 6th ed., even though they were Special in the regular Druchii army.
2) I believe that this would help differentiate the Cult from the regular Druchii army.
3) 16+ pts./model is pretty steep for a Core infantry unit, so that alone would make me think that people would limit the number of them within the army, least they end up with an extremely small army. That being said, I admit that there could be a problem with armies consisting of BS5 Shades and nothing else. I’d let it come to a test though, as I believe that it would be a significant minority that would create a Shade army.
4) I’d leave Marauder Horsemen and all Daemons as Special choices, and so I would still see a use for Shades within the Core selection.
Despite that I agree that adding special rules just for the hell of it is a bad thing, I still believe that the best option in this situation would be to allow 1 unit of Shades pr. 1000 pts. count as Core, and any additional units as Special. But again. We’ll ultimately need playtesting.
Weenth wrote: IV. CoK- As discussed previously, it’s quite easy to fit them fluff-wise in CoS army (as they may crave ability to feel they lost)
- Were present in 6th CoS list, so that’s a reason to include them
- Might not be needed if Knights of Chaos are available without Anointed, still would leave Druchii/daemon type force without any heavy unit.
- Don’t like the idea of introducing other druchii heavy cavalry – regular DE don’t have them so their background also creates problems and CoK have advantage of already being in the list. (and TBH, Kyrel, isn’t their reason more that you’d want DE heavy cavalry without stupidity?
)
Heh. I can’t rule out that my utter hatred of the Stupidity suffering Cold Ones play a part in my preferring Barded Dark Steeds to Cold Ones
Since the general preference rgd. the Dumb Ones seems to be to include them as a Special entry, then I’ll back down on the fight on this issue. I’m not forced to include them, and I can win without a unit of heavy cavalry (but DAMN I wish that the Druchii army included a unit of heavy cavalry that I could rely on doing what I want it to do, WHEN I want/need it to do it!).
/Kyrel