JackOfBlades

I dont think the loss of I, WS, S and T matters so much, thats just one kind of system. If we still had those, then in AOS terms theyd just make the vampire lord and goblin chief have the same stats. GW can still give things different stats for wounds, saves, attacks, rend, damage and special rules like always strikes first (always, on a 4+, on the charge, ...) with their current system, if they wanted to. So that a goblin chief isnt the equivalent of a vampire lord, but a vampire lord is more equivalent to the things it's supposed to be similar to. It just needs to be done systematically.

I saw the new thread for small heroes after finishing my reply to you, so ill just delete it and go to that thread... 😅

Heres what id do: 1. Copy 40ks system of ATTACHED UNITS, EPIC CHALLENGE stratagem and PRECISION keyword. 2. Rework the buffs of certain combat heroes like the lord of pain to reward being in combat, like the beastlord (foot chaos lords need particularly a rework as they dont actually do anything). 3. Add more sensible granularity to different hero profiles, so a loonboss isnt deadlier than a lord of plagues or equivalent to an abhorrant archregent as is the case now. No one thinks small combat heroes should effortlessly slaughter units of elite troops and be invulnerable against attacks from huge hordes of clanrats, thats just a strawman retort. But for example a chaos lord on foot should have a fighting chance against a dankhold troggoth, because their lore says so: "When challenged they will even stand in the path of a frenzied troggoth". Currently the dankhold will instakill the chaos lord on average, and suffer about 3-4 damage per turn in response before its healing. As their lore and black library novels describe them doing, this would have combat heroes leading from the front, fighting cinematic battles with each other, and the most powerful types of them holding their own against the kind of enemies theyre said to.

Yep. And Glutos is a perfect example of what i mean as unlike Vhordrai there isnt even a generic variation of Glutos' rules. Yes, there will be a limit to how much you can bring your fantasy alive and thats no problem. I dont think anyone expects their generic character to have completely unique equipment or rules compared to every other player's generic character. But i do think GW needs to do a more professional work of designing and balancing the various equipments, artefacts, traits and spells. In 9th edition 40k you had so many choices to make for your keeper of secrets, which exalted upgrade? which warlord trait? which artefact? which spells? In the invaders subfaction of hedonites by contrast, there are hardly choices to be made among the command traits and artefacts and no exalted upgrades at all. And one of the primary complaints of 40k players seems to be that that's gone from the 10th indexes too now, and all you can do is imagine.

I dont really agree, in WHFB there was already a power range of vampires. You had non-heroes like blood knights at the bottom, then thralls, then counts, then lords, dont see why you cant have the same thing here. I also personally strongly dislike the move of making special characters crowd out generic characters.

Agreed. Since they almost certainly wont add I, WS, S and T back, i hope interaction changes like paired hero-unit activations and reduced hero sniping, plus their claimed systemic rebalance of the profiles throughout the game to match the lore, will reach a similar endpoint. My bottomline is that no matter how they do it, combat heroes should be incentivised to lead from the front as they are depicted in the lore. You shouldnt be incentivised to use something like a lord of pain, slaughterpriest or vampire lord as a non-combatant (unless the vampire is supposed to be a frail caster). Chaos lords happen to also need a glowup to merit taking them in general.

Just a detail but the slickblade attack bonus is against 1-3 wound targets not 1-2, so they dont fall off yet here. It's the hellscourge striders and daemon seekers who have the 1-2 wound range.

I really like that idea of objectives effectively getting their own terrain rules. It provides a more intuitive and interesting reason to fight over them besides just arbitrary "points", and could shake things up in a good way.

From what i read in Lord of Undeath, Neferata has little ability to be more than Nagash's tool simply because of the power her condition gives Nagash over her (and Mannfred). Something she is keenly aware and anxious of. To change that they would have to set up a culmination of how Nagash's power over the mortarchs is broken, which cant come from only the mortarchs themselves either as Nagash couldnt not see that coming.

Who is that female stormcast with the hammer? she looks so damn cool!

If all the subfaction artefacts and spells had at least been worth using, it wouldnt be the biggest deal. But Invaders are sitting at only 1 artefact and 1 spell that dont suck. To top that off, you always want the same command traits too (hurler base, chain hurler + botb) because there is nothing else. It's like running a unique character.

You get both effects, see 1.6.2 simultaneous effects, and it doesnt fall under 1.6.4 since they arent triggered effects. This is why the tuskhelm artefact specifies that it cant be combined with other impact hits, because you are normally able to unless it says otherwise.

But how did you create it?

What's that big pink orb? looks great!

Why did you go for 2 units of 3 fiends instead of 1 unit of 6? I think Godseekers have some more potential tech with the ritual knife, since hunter supreme can prevent pile ins to lower the return damage the keeper will take. But that wont work against gargants of course, and it's not easy to wipe out a gargant in one turn to use heroic recovery (to the extent it or emerald lifeswarm would help).

The fane was one of the things i thought they would rewrite for sure, i was very surprised that it's essentially the same.

Does anyone know why the wheels of excruciation cost 80 compared to the 60 of the other endless spells? I feel like at best they just do a bit more of what the army already fulfills, damage against units with low saves, no wards and poor magic defense. But i want there to be something i dont know that the designers/you guys know.

That's true, why didnt i think of that? doh!

Three ways you can go: #1 - Ask the opponent ahead of the rolls whether they plan to accept or refuse any temptation. Speeds up the process, but opponents will be against it since it gives them less information to decide with. #2 - Calculate it one roll at a time. Slows the game, and opponents will still be against it since they want option #3 which is... #3 - Make combined rolls and decide after theyre done. People playing against Slaanesh will favor this since it's the best option for them while still speeding up the game. The only thing im sure of is that GW did not or should not intend to slow the game down to one dice roll at a time. I think #2 or #3 is closest to RAW as it stands since the ability triggers when your opponent makes a roll, which they obviously havent made if you ask them ahead of time, and theres nothing that says it cancels the combined attacks rule. But i obviously hope they will FAQ it to #1.

Yes they lose it, since the ability is not on their warscroll but rather a battle trait of a Maggotkin of Nurgle army.

Mortals that dont depend on attacks (like Nurgle and charge mortals), objective swamping (and sniping out any hellscourge hellstriders), or pin & win is what i see to deal with that stuff. I think that's very thematic - it's effective against prideful foes who refuse to not beat them directly, and less effective against humble foes who swallow their pride and do the unglamorous things necessary for victory.

The book's overall design is pretty much exactly what i hoped they would do with it, you can tell that there has been a change in the management of the battletome(s) at GW. Even my pet peeve, the keeper of secret's weapon options, have all been made worth taking - something i really did not expect. For example the ritual knife was absolute garbage before, but now you can take: pretenders + strength of godhood + euphoric killers + ritual knife. With other buffs the knife gets set to 2+/2+/-2/2, and every wound and mortal wound it causes will generate depravity. That means you could generate up to 8 depravity from the knife alone with a use of euphoric killers, on top of the much improved damage it does. Then the keeper's wound degradation and defensive support options are much better, and the knife helps finish off units so you can use heroic recovery the subsequent turn, making sinistrous hand less necessary. It's changes like this that show the competence level for battletome writing has increased.

At last. I want: - Compelling and slaaneshy spell lores - The 4 keeper offhand options to all be worth taking - No options that are made dysfunctional and left as such (fiends and coherency until recently, all non-hero units before the battletome errata, the excessive violence and locus changes that made strongest alone and breathtaker unplayable along other pretenders nerfs, struggling warscrolls like slaangors and blissbarb seekers, ...) - Rework summoning so you can both have an all mortals army and the daemon warscrolls are worth starting with - No command trait and artefact straitjacketing with the subfactions - More slaaneshy rules for both battle traits, subfactions and warscrolls like Nurgle (and other tomes) got, there is sooo much you could do, this is an army whose lore revolves around wanting to be and to feel more than the mundane. But instead the design is one of the most "basic" of all.

Oh yeah, that's right - sloppy wording by me (i wasnt thinking about it hitting your own troops 😁).

Yes, 1 spawn per turn is created every turn that the spell slays any enemy models - that's how i read it.